Keeping an eye on
Last night I was in London for an event at the Science Museum's Dana Centre (where there is a nice cafe; I'd not been there before). Some of the authors of the Royal Academy of Engineering report entitled "Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance" were there, and I'd recommend the report, a fascinating read, and clearly the mix of engineers and social scientists on the working group found the process of interdisciplinary discussion enlightening. It's a very pragmatic study, considering where the world is going and where we are now, not just where we might like to be.
The real purpose of the evening was "Keeping an Eye On", a workshop to explore the implications of the report, and part of the Science Horizons project. The scenarios presented weren't great, I thought, particularly the second in which the main point appeared to http://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifbe that the radical new technology didn't actually work correctly, but the discussions afterwards with members of the public were fascinating.
As an aside, in the context of science debate, should we (the technologists) describe the masses as the public? Aren't they the same as us really?
It was also interesting to compare the scenarios, and the presentation of the event overall, with the interactive discussion pack from Science Horizons, which alertme staff had a go at on Monday. This pack presents a potential future Britain in 2025, with scenarios describing various aspects of technology in this brave new world. Small groups of up to 12 people are encouraged to go through the pack, and report back how they feel about the technologies and their social and ethical impacts. The responses get fed back to the project, which continues nationwide until June 2007, and are then apparently to be presented to government. Whilst some of the pack's scenarios were interesting and could clearly spark debate, others seemed ill thought out, and barely futuristic at all. Also, some of the "where are we now with this technology?" sections were clearly incorrect. (RFIDs don't transmit data over distance on an ongoing basis!) Still, we did have a fair discussion around it, and a company dominated by engineers is not, perhaps, the target audience for the pack. (If you are interested, the website has a form where you can request a free pack, and organise a discussion yourself.) Despite the flaws, though, it's good to see these issues being raised and discussed outside the technology world. Privacy and surveillance affect everyone, whether they realise it or not. Some of the real world examples of current databases and systems going wrong were very scary indeed; if more people can be exposed to genuine potential outcomes of these technologies, they might be less bowled over by "CCTV spots terrorist" headlines. CCTV didn't stop the terrorist, after all...
The real purpose of the evening was "Keeping an Eye On", a workshop to explore the implications of the report, and part of the Science Horizons project. The scenarios presented weren't great, I thought, particularly the second in which the main point appeared to http://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifbe that the radical new technology didn't actually work correctly, but the discussions afterwards with members of the public were fascinating.
As an aside, in the context of science debate, should we (the technologists) describe the masses as the public? Aren't they the same as us really?
It was also interesting to compare the scenarios, and the presentation of the event overall, with the interactive discussion pack from Science Horizons, which alertme staff had a go at on Monday. This pack presents a potential future Britain in 2025, with scenarios describing various aspects of technology in this brave new world. Small groups of up to 12 people are encouraged to go through the pack, and report back how they feel about the technologies and their social and ethical impacts. The responses get fed back to the project, which continues nationwide until June 2007, and are then apparently to be presented to government. Whilst some of the pack's scenarios were interesting and could clearly spark debate, others seemed ill thought out, and barely futuristic at all. Also, some of the "where are we now with this technology?" sections were clearly incorrect. (RFIDs don't transmit data over distance on an ongoing basis!) Still, we did have a fair discussion around it, and a company dominated by engineers is not, perhaps, the target audience for the pack. (If you are interested, the website has a form where you can request a free pack, and organise a discussion yourself.) Despite the flaws, though, it's good to see these issues being raised and discussed outside the technology world. Privacy and surveillance affect everyone, whether they realise it or not. Some of the real world examples of current databases and systems going wrong were very scary indeed; if more people can be exposed to genuine potential outcomes of these technologies, they might be less bowled over by "CCTV spots terrorist" headlines. CCTV didn't stop the terrorist, after all...