UbiComp 2003 -- Update

I went back to browse through the Conference agenda to see whether there was much or any concern for the implications of ubiquitous computing. As an owner of an Airport-configured iBook I am a great enthusiast, at least when I can post from my favorite coffee houses, for ubiquitous computing. I also like my privacy. I wish that UbiComp 2003 shared those privacy concerns a bit more aggressively.

The good news is that there is a conference session on "Social Aspects and Privacy." The bad news appears (I'd be overjoyed if someone from the Conference can reassure me that I have missed something) when you start to read the papers which will be presented. Such as:

IntelliBadgeTM: Towards Providing Location-Aware Value-Added Services at Academic Conferences

This paper contains details on a project aimed to provide location-aware value-added services to the participants of an academic conference. The major characteristic of this project is the fusion of RFID technology, database management, data mining, real-time information visualization, and interactive web application technologies into an operational integrated system deployed at a major public conference. The developed system tracks conference attendees, analyzes the tracking data in real-time and provides various services to the attendees, such as a real-time snapshot of the conference events attendance, the ability to locate friends in the convention center, and the ability to search for events of interest. The results of this experiment were revealing in terms of both the potential of the developed technology and the conference dynamics.(emphases added -- DS)

Chilling in some ways. But Hey! I can see the point. I'd also like to lounge a cafe and be discretely "pinged" (though her Palm) by that intriguing woman seated across the room. But I'm a bit surprised that the "Gee Whiz" approach to Ubiquitous Computing seems to be the overwhelming style at UbiComp 2003.

Of course I can readily understand it --- that iBook goes with me everywhere --- and yes I understand that ubiquitous computing goes well beyond carrying a laptop around and that's why I am posting on this again. The appeal of these techologies as toys is enormous. Here, for instance, is one key session:

Mobile Play: Blogging, Tagging, and Messaging

Ubiquitous computing, by its very definition, aspires to weave computing technologies across the fabric of our everyday lives. Many of the successes and failures encountered during the pursuit of ubiquitous computing will be dictated by the manifest integration of play. It is play that helps us cope with the past, understand the present, and prepare for the future. This panel of experts is passionately interested in engaging in a critical dialogue around the applicability, adoption, and consequences of such elements of play in ubiquitous computing research. As motivation, several tremendously popular ubiquitous computing themes with playful elements will be examined: blogging, tagging, and message play.

Compu Ludens indeed.

But let's also remember that Hobbes wasn't all wrong and that someone is going to use these technologies for their own nasty and brutish ends. So maybe a bit more thinking of the downside might be useful. No?

Not to exagerate, there is awareness of the issue but rather than being pervasive, it seems to be pushed to the margins and in fact the workshop which seems to focus on the issue is before the Conference formally starts:

Workshop on Security in Ubiquitous Computing

Abstract Anonymity is a protection goal that helps to protect the privacy of users by ensuring that their identity remains unknown. As privacy is a grave concern in pervasive computing, the need for suitable anonymity mechanisms is apparent. This contribution uses the Freiburg privacy diamond to analyze the possibilities for anonymity mechanisms in pervasive and highlights the problems that arise out of the one user many devices model.

As well, there is some very intelligent thinking at UbiComp's Discussion Space. But again, the privacy concern is pushed to the margins. The central focus of the Conference is "What great toys!" Or at least that is what comes through to this casual reader.

I'd just prefer it if the entire conference was built around these privacy problems rather than full-steaming ahead and somehow assuming that they will be taken care of. But that's just me; I am a conservative.

Comments

[Anne]

Well, I'm not a conservative and I definitely share your impressions and concerns! I pointed at this a bit in this post when I mentioned these type concerns seeming more in the interests of sociology and anthropology than UbiComp ... But we shall see ;)

[Joe McCarthy]

In addition to the workshop you reference, another UbiComp 2003 workshop will focus on Ubicomp Communities: Privacy as Boundary Negotiation. I actually view the fact that two of our pre-conference workshops are focused on privacy and security as a sign of the importance of these aspects to our field, not as an indication of disregard.

There was a recent conference with a narrower focus on issues with which you seem most concerned: The First International Conference on Security in Pervasive Computing, convened in Boppard, Germany, this past March. Our conference has a broader focus, including ubiquitous computing devices, infrastructures, applications and the impacts of ubiquitous computing technology on various dimensions of human experience (including privacy and security). As you note, some of the research explores playful uses of the technology, other research explores more serious issues such as healthcare (e.g., the workshop on Ubiquitous Computing for Pervasive Healthcare Applications and the paper session on Domestic Environments and Healthcare.

UbiComp is a multidisciplinary field, with participants representing a variety of discplines (computer science, engineering, architecture, sociology, anthropology and art, to name but a few) and perspectives ... perhaps even including some conservatives.

[David Sucher]

Thanks Joe. I appreciate the update.

But I wouldn't characterize my issue as the narrower one. :) (Who ever would?)

My whole point is that privacy & social impacts should be the central issue and I still maintain that your conference gives them short shrift. And that's not surprising.

Obviously you folks can solve the technical problems; that's a given. But it's the spin-out of these technologies into society which are the difficult questions. No one wants to be a party-pooper by saying let's not take the toy out of the box until we have at least some vague idea of how to re-pack it. But of course I am indeed saying something along those lines, naive as that may be.

But hey! I am a capitalist and I understand very well the desire to make money. UbiComp has enormous potential and I can well sympathize with the pressure to get the product(s) out to market and let the social impacts sort themselves out later. It's very human. And maybe it might work fine. I mean, no one looked into the potential impacts of the automobile...and we obviously have a good handle on that one. Right?

[Scott Lederer]

"My whole point is that privacy & social impacts should be the central issue and I still maintain that your conference gives them short shrift."

I suspect the Ubicomp conference would benefit from more paper submissions that focus on privacy & social impacts. Indeed, as it represents the very coupling of technology and social action, ubiquitous computing needs equal, cooperative analysis from both technologists and social thinkers. That said, the Ubicomp conference is primarily a technical conference. A second conference of equal size, focused on the social issues, would be a strong complement. You can imagine the two conferences feeding off of each other cyclically, each refining the findings of the other, annually. Until that occurs, a carefully increased focus on social impacts in the technical program should be considered.

That said, part of the reason the technical Ubicomp conference cannot make privacy and (negative) social impact its _primary_ focus is that many ubicomp systems end up used in closed settings where such issues are considerably more manageable than they are in open society. A good example is location tracking in eldercare facilities. With few exceptions, the elder residents (and their adult children/legal guardians) are comfortable with the tracking, since the benefits (eg, freedom to be physically alone and to wander the campus) outweigh the costs. Other systems are used in scientific laboratories and other closed settings. Indeed, the actual social ramifications of these systems often cannot be known until they are tried out. Advancing this technology responsibly is best done step by step, testing new capabilities, evaluating their positive and negative social impacts, and refining their designs accordingly.

In sum, the social and technical challenges are best addressed in parallel and with equal effort, for neither exists without the other.

"I can well sympathize with the pressure to get the product(s) out to market and let the social impacts sort themselves out later."

On the contrary, the Ubicomp conference serves as a forum for addressing social impacts of technical advances before they hit the market. The privacy and security workshops are examples of this, where a semi-informal setting can foster new ideas and cooperative initiatives that lead to important positive influences on the social impacts of technical systems. Naturally, another forum for exploring social issues would help.

The Ubicomp conference includes a strong emphasis on human factors, which is itself commendable, given the "short shrift" that human factors traditionally get in science and technology circles. In the end, addressing human factors is good for people _and_ for business. Companies that fully understand this will not overlook the social impacts of ubiquitous computing.