Cited by 177Ethics and Social Impacts of AITechnology, Environment, Urban PlanningCybernetics and Technology in Society

Ethics from Within: Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the Mediated Value of Privacy

Open access
Kudina, Olya, Verbeek, Peter-Paul·2019·Science, Technology, & Human Values

Abstract

Following the “control dilemma” of Collingridge, influencing technological developments is easy when their implications are not yet manifest, yet once we know these implications, they are difficult to change. This article revisits the Collingridge dilemma in the context of contemporary ethics of technology, when technologies affect both society and the value frameworks we use to evaluate them. Early in its development, we do not know how a technology will affect the value frameworks from which it will be evaluated, while later, when the implications for society and morality are clearer, it is more difficult to guide the development in a desirable direction. Present-day approaches to this dilemma focus on methods to anticipate ethical impacts of a technology (“technomoral scenarios”), being too speculative to be reliable, or on ethically regulating technological developments (“sociotechnical experiments”), discarding anticipation of the future implications. We present the approach of technological mediation as an alternative that focuses on the dynamics of the interaction between technologies and human values. By investigating online discussions about Google Glass, we examine how people articulate new meanings of the value of privacy. This study of “morality in the making” allows developing a modest and empirically informed form of anticipation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0162243918793711

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Boenink, Marianne, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2015. "Technomoral Scenarios." Paper presented at the workshop What's Next in Socio-Technical Intervention Approaches? University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, June 22-23.
  2. Chenail, Ronald J. 2011. "YouTube as a Qualitative Research Asset: Reviewing User Generated Videos as Learning Resources." The Qualitative Report 16 (1): 229-35.
  3. Collingridge, David. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Mar- tin's Press.
  4. Elish, Madeleine C. 2017. "Remote Split: A History of US Drone Operations and the Distributed Labor of War." Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (6): 1100-31.
  5. Firstenberg, Allen, and Jason Salas. 2014. Designing and Developing for Google Glass. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. Google. 2013. "Glass Security & Privacy." Accessed December 22, 2016. https://si tes.google.com/site/glasscomms/faqs#GlassSecurity&Privacy.
  6. Koelle, Marion, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Mo ¨ller. 2015. "Don't Look at me that Way! Understanding User Attitudes towards Data Glasses Usage." Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 362-72, ACM. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.697.1049&rep=rep1&type¼pdf.
  7. Mayer-Scho ¨nberger, Viktor. 2009. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  8. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  9. Robaey, Zoe ¨. 2016. "Gone with the Wind: Conceiving of Moral Responsibility in the Case of GMO Contamination." Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 889-906.
  10. Roessler, Beate, and Dorota Mokrosinska. 2013. "Privacy and Social Interaction." Philosophy & Social Criticism 39 (8): 771-91.
  11. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. "Conceptualizing Privacy."California Law Review 90 (4): 1087-155.
  12. Steeves, Valerie, and Priscilla Regan. 2014. "Young People Online and the Social Value of Privacy." Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 12 (4): 298-313.
  13. Steijn, Wouter M., and Anton Vedder. 2015. "Privacy under Construction: A Devel- opmental Perspective on Privacy Perception." Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (4): 1-23.
  14. Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Arie Rip. 2007. "Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation about New and Emerging Science and Technology." NanoEthics 1 (1): 3-20.
  15. Swierstra, Tsjalling, Dirk Stemerding, and Marianne Boenink. 2009. "Exploring Techno-moral Change: The Case of the Obesitypill." In Evaluating New Tech- nologies, edited by Paul Sollie and Marcus Duwell, 119-38. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  16. Taylor, Nick. 2002. "State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy." Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 66-85.
  17. van de Poel, Ibo. 2011. "Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment." Ethics, Policy & Environment 14 (3): 285-90.
  18. van de Poel, Ibo. 2013. "Why New Technologies should be Conceived as Social Experiments." Ethics, Policy & Environment 16 (3): 352-55.
  19. van de Poel, Ibo. 2016. "An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Tech- nology." Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 667-86.
  20. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2005. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technol- ogy, Agency, and Design. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  21. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2010. "Accompanying Technology: Philosophy of Technology after the Ethical Turn." Techne´: Research in Philosophy and Technology 14 (1): 49-54.
  22. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2011. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2014. "Some Misunderstandings about the Moral Signifi- cance of Technology." In The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts, edited by Peter Kroes and Peter-Paul Verbeek, 75-88. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Wayback Machine. 2015. "Glass. What It Does." The Internet Archive. Accessed May 14, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20150115191209/https://www.goo gle.com/glass/start/what-it-does/.
  24. Author Biographies Olya Kudina is a PhD candidate in philosophy of technology at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. In her dissertation, she conceptually and empirically explores the way technologies mediate human norms and values. Her research interests relate to ethics of technology, (post)phenomenology, hermeneutics, and bioethics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P.
Affiliations
University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Kudina, Olya
Venue
Science, Technology, & Human Values
Published
2018-08-21
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
291-314
ISSN
  • 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8251
OpenAlex
W2888558290
Cited by
177
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 1
FWCI
29.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science Technology & Human Values (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (277-20-006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Technology, Environment, Urban Planning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
Collingridge dilemma, Google Glass, privacy, ethics of technology, technological mediation, online discourse, human values, wearable devices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review