WORKSHOP:
CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CREATION AND CONTROL OF
PERSONAL/COLLECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SPACES
Privacy-related Issues in Computer-Mediated Spaces
Liam J. Bannon
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Systems,
University of Limerick,
Limerick, Ireland
Phone: +353-61-333644
Fax: +353-61-330876
Email: bannonl@ul.ie
Position Statement
Nature of Interest in Workshop
My position on the privacy issue is based partially on experiences over the years with my own personal workspace that has become increasingly mediated through information and communication technologies. It is augmented by some personal experiences with one of the high technology media-space environments much in the news these days, together with extended discussions with people who daily work in such environments. I am also involved in this issue as a member of ACM SIGCAS and lecturer in the area of Social Dimensions of Technology.
For me, there are a number of issues at stake here, and it is not altogether a good thing that they are usually lumped together under the rubric of Privacy. Coming to terms with an environment that potentially contains active, listening agents, where images, sounds, texts, gestures are all potentially capturable and reproducible over time and space creates the need for a new way of thinking about the whole conception of Privacy than the classic image of somebody breaking into one’s files, snooping over your shoulder, or listening in on your phone calls. Within the IT fraternity, any concern with social dimensions of the new information/communications technologies is immediately labelled "social stuff", and deemed to be the province of sociologists or media types, outside of the province of the technologists. Such concerns are seen as rather minor in the great scale of things, and perhaps OK so long as they do not interfere with the march of the technology. Currently there is a debate in certain quarters which is attempting to move the discussion out of such simplistic and inappropriate modes of discourse, and make it an integral part of studying technology. Technology itself is ultimately a social relation, after all. What is required, in my opinion, is that everyone, as an individual, must take some responsibility for the research work that they carry out, and be aware, at some level at least, of the possible applications of their work. Claiming that inventions per se are neutral and so it the fault of others if they are "abused" in society assumes a view of science and technology practice in the world that is, in my view, questionable. The alternative account does not mean that research or invention should stop, but it does mean that people engaged in such work must understand and be able to defend the intent of possible applications, rather than shelter behind excuses of evil politicians or business people exploiting their "pure" research work.
Moving to the particular topic under discussion, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I list just a few of these issues below:
1. Differing Social & Cultural Expectations re. Privacy
As a number of people have mentioned, where "privacy" boundaries lie is highly context dependent and varies considerably between individuals and across cultures. We probably each have our own experiences of the latter fact through travels in different cultures, and such social norms must be respected in different settings. For example, in many parts of Africa and Asia, people work, eat, sleep, play, act, etc. usually in close proximity to others. The notion of "private space" common in many Western countries is not only hard to find, but the very concept is difficult to grasp, given the different experiences in the cultures.
2. Conceptualising Privacy
The very concept of privacy is one that needs explication. Conceptions of private/public boundaries are deeply ingrained in a variety of disciplines, and it would be useful to bring together some of the differing conceptions evident in the different disciplines. Also, the philosophical and experiential aspects of the concept need to be developed. In much of the discussions within the IT-related communities, conceptions of privacy are distinctly undeveloped. For example, much of the latter work assumes positions on conceptions of individual vs. collective rights which would not transfer to other groups - see the point above. Our models of privacy and related issues need to be rich enough to incorporate quite different perspectives on relations between the individual and the social. Indeed, the Western acceptance of the individual/social split is itself a case in point - such a conception is not a universal a priori.
3. Distinguishing Research Spaces from Work Spaces
Many of the studies done on advanced media spaces have been conducted within prestigious research laboratories, where in many cases the actual designers of the spaces are themselves users. While there is nothing wrong in designers trying out their creations - indeed, it is in general a good thing - the dangers come when such people describe their experiences and in some cases assume that their experiences can be seen as prototypical. Apart altogether from personal idiosyncrasies of the people involved, there are likely to be major differences concerning the workaday world of the lab and many real work situations( cf. Clement, 1994). These factors involve, among other things, the different "moral orders" (Harper, 1992) in the different settings. The only clear way of finding out how such technologies might be used in differing settings by people is to put them into such a setting and study their daily use. We are just beginning to do this.
4. The Downside of Ubiquitous Computing & Communication Facilities
While a number of the scenarios of ubiquitous computing (Weiser, 1991) and communication are exciting and persuasive, like anything, they have a downside. There appears to be an assumption behind much of the technology development that people are constantly seeking to inscribe their thoughts onto some permanent material and to share them with others. The fact that people also need to work alone (Harper & Carter, 1994) and to communicate at times without a recording medium (Lyytinen et al., 1994) seems somehow to be forgotten in the rush to provide group communication spaces with archival properties. We must also remember that people have developed a set of social conventions for written versus oral material, and blurring this boundary is not without consequences. Just because it may be possible to keep records of many situations and events does not imply that we necessarily should, or that doing so will result in any improvements in the human condition. Indeed, by creating more homogenised electronic information and communication spaces, we may possibly be seen as decreasing the variability of human communication modes that we currently work with. It would appear that at this critical juncture in the development of new technologies to supposedly "support" us in our activities, we would do well to explore more fully the variety of ways in which people relate to each other, at certain times via artefacts, and how current media both liberate and restrict human communicative practices. Replacing the Panopticon, which presumes an external observer, by the "electronic fishbowl" where everyone can see everyone else is not exactly a solution to the problem. We must consider peer surveillance, control or simple "awareness" and its consequences rather than the classic "big brother" scenario that is most commonly put forward.
Stories ( not exactly Scenarios, but...)
NOTE: The items below are described solely for discussion purposes at the Workshop. I realise that other interpretations of these observations are possible, and do not intend them to be read as indicting particular people, but rather wish to use the stories to concretise certain, to my mind, problematic, situations.
1) The Opposite of Serendipity - mindless (?) videotaping of a meeting
This simple story concerns a small annual conference where one year it was decided that as many of the sessions as possible would be video-taped. There never seemed to be a clear rationale for this decision, other than a vague feeling that it might be useful to have the event on record, and to my recollection, the question as to whether there was any mechanism to allow people to say no to videoing was not countenanced. It is important to note this conference was geared towards mutual interaction and support, rather than archival presentations. So it happened that at one of the sessions which did have a video camera running, a very emotional dispute took place been certain parties, to the extent of tears etc.... News of this event spread through the conference quickly, and there was an interest on the part of people who had not been there to witness the incident for themselves in order to ascertain the veracity of the stories. This placed the organisers in a bit of a quandary as they did not seem to want to satisfy the curiosity seekers, while at the same time the veracity of some of the stories being circulated could have been clarified by reference to the tape. In the event, the tape was not shown at all at the conference., but even afterwards, for a period, it became a hotly contested item. To my knowledge, it was subsequently shown, once, under conditions of some secrecy to a select few, - for exactly what purpose I am not sure - but then people felt this was not a good idea, and so I believe the tape was subsequently erased.
Moral of the story?
To my mind, one simple issue raised by this story is the probity of ubiquitous videotaping. I would argue that the case for videoing any event or situation should be argued for beforehand, and discussed with all parties concerned - access to the tape afterward should be defined, and the right of certain parties to order erasure if necessary. The answer: "it might be interesting" would not be deemed sufficient. This would get rid of situations where videoing is seen as an almost automatic and unquestionable activity, and would have avoided the awkward situation described above. As an example of controlled use of video, I would give the example of aircraft simulation training exercises, where a video is made of the crew’s performance which is used in the subsequent de-briefing session, but then is erased. This is a contractual arrangement between the pilots association and the airlines, I believe.
2) Research (mis-) use of video
With the increasing interest in field studies of various forms, the use of video in the workplace for research purposes has become a commonplace. After some initial discomfort with the idea, many workers forget that it is there and carry on without regard to it. Indeed, I once heard a field worker remark how nice it was that the people seemed to completely forget about the taping, as the fixed videos blended into the settings, and microphones were partially concealed from view. In most cases, researchers are aware of ethical issues involved here, and do inform those on the video of their rights and the limited uses that the tape might be put, but there certainly are issues of concern here. A major issue is the taking of a slice of human behaviour out of its setting for analysis and subsequent discussion in other fora, often in cases where the people who are the subjects, (or is it objects?) of enquiry are not themselves able to explain their actions to the new audiences who now see this piece of "real life activity" interpreted through the lenses of people with a specific research orientation. I believe that this issue of subjects rights needs careful study, and goes well beyond simple questions of "fairness".
3) Automatic Recording of Phone Calls
At a recent conference there was a presentation on a method by which one could start to search and index audio tapes, using the example of how this would be useful for phone conversations. While the techniques described were of interest, a few people in the audience seemed restive. At the end of the presentation, one member of the audience noted how the activities being described currently violated a number of laws in the US re phone-tapping. The response of the speaker - which seemed to be supported by many in the audience, judging from the reaction, was that the question was inappropriate, as what was being discussed here was a "only" a research tool at this stage. In the conference paper, there is a mention of privacy issues in the last paragraph, that admits that such issues might need looking into at some stage, but it apparently was not seen as a major issue by the research group concerned.
Moral
I have felt for some time that the simple dichotomy that is often presented, especially at CSCW conferences, of 2 groups 1) the research scientists, who make the software and widgets, and 2) the "social" scientists who might look at its uses and potential benefits and problems, is an inappropriate perspective on the problem. What is required, in my opinion, is that everyone, as an individual, must take some responsibility for the research work that they carry out, and be aware, at some level at least, of the possible applications of their work. Claiming that the invention per se is neutral and it the fault of others if it is abused in society assumes a view of science and technology practice in the world that is questionable. While one can see some benign uses of this work, the assumption that in the future most "live" phone conversations will be taped significantly changes the view most people would have of the medium, certainly for me personally. If such a change is being advocated, it should in my view be explicitly noted and discussed, rather than simply being an implicit assumption behind the development of a new tool.
4) A Media Space incident
I was involved in an incident involving a media space some years ago that raises some interesting questions. The situation was a meeting between 2 groups of researchers from quite different settings, along with some other people who had various connections to the 2 main groups, and the discussion was of a serious nature. After a number of people had aired their views, and there had been considerable group discussion, there was a sense that the meeting had moved along and that both sides had a better understanding of what each were trying to do, and how they might be able to cooperate. The group as a whole seemed to have progressed from its initial state of uncertainty and slight unease. Such a view of the meeting was shattered when a new member of one of the groups suddenly arrived into the meeting place and began to discuss with the group about matters that had been aired earlier in the group. For a number of people, this "contribution" to the discussions was seen as a serious intrusion into the groups space, as he had not been physically present for the earlier discussions of the group. Rather, he had been listening to the meeting in his office below, by means of a sophisticated audio system, and now appeared to add his two cents worth when, to his mind, the topic got "interesting". This lead to a serious emotional row between some members of the group and the individual, as to the appropriateness of this form of behaviour, on a number of dimensions. This person assumed the meeting was aware that they were in a room that was "live" and so their activities were accessible to all. Since many of the meeting participants were new to the setting, they felt that this was not made clear at all, and felt that their privacy had as a result been grossly violated. Also, people felt that their conceptions of what it means to be "at a meeting" were not being honoured.
Moral
Again, we see the need to make explicit the nature of the environment in which we are working. Since what is happening currently is that our everyday familiar environments are being electronically "augmented" we need to provide clear cues to the occupiers of these familiar spaces that they are no longer as "benign" as previously thought, but for example, are now wired for sound and video. Personally, I am not at all sure of the benefits of some of these shared spaces that have been created. While I have no problems with their exploration, I would encourage a deeper investigation of our workaday communicative practices and needs alongside. It appears that much of the experiences of such phenomena to date are of a personal kind, which, while undoubtedly useful, could be supplemented with a more elaborated conceptual analysis of space and media usage in work situations.
The creation of these media spaces also requires a more careful consideration of exactly how everyday social practices are enacted, and to what extent electronic "substitutions" or "augmentations" preserve the characteristics of the traditional practices. We may have to develop a whole new set of practices around new kinds of technologies. For example, the matter-of-fact way in which the person appeared and then apparently commented on the previous discussion violated the very idea of what a meeting involves, in the eyes of many of the participants. Namely, a meeting implies that the parties speaking and being spoken to are mutually co-present and are engaged in the mutual construction of some form of common understanding, an understanding that is achieved, not simply given. The idea that one can be "present" at a meeting, on an equal level with people physically co-present and mutually interacting, simply be having an audio feed of what is going on requires more serious examination.
5) Curtains for the video camera?
In another discussion that I once had with a developer of a media space, when I suggested that the video camera would be seen as obtrusive by the worker, I was informed that apart from the ability of the person to turn off the camera, a technological solution to the problem of privacy was being developed, namely the possibility of having a form of Venetian blind on the image, so that the image details would not be seen by others.
Moral
With regard to the notion that people are in control by their ability to turn the camera off, a few points can be raised. Principally, if an organization invests heavily to equip offices with video cameras, mikes etc., then to what extent is it likely in terms of the etiquette that develops amongst co-workers ( never mind management directives) for people to be off-line, when it is known that people are in fact in their offices? It is likely that social pressure will be put on people to use the expensive technologies that they have been given. (Indeed, Harper (personal communication) has indicated several examples of such pressures in one of the settings he has investigated.) Secondly, when issues of privacy are raised, more than a "technical fix" is involved. The expedient of having curtains on the video seems like a technical fix to a social problem, and while it certainly may be of use on occasion, it does not get around the need for debate about the larger issue of ubiquitous visibility in the workplace.
References
Clement, A. (1994) Considering Privacy in the Development of Multi-Media Communication. CSCW Journal, vol. 2, nos.1-2, pp. 67- 88.
Weiser, M. (1991) The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, Sept. 1991, 66-75.