Ethics from Within: Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the Mediated Value of Privacy
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Technologies mediate morality by helping to shape moral inclinations and decisions.
“By helping to shape moral inclinations and decisions, technologies mediate morality: prenatal genetic testing mediates moral questions and decisions about childbearing, (semi)autonomous robots mediate the moral experiences of war and CCTV cameras mediate public behavior.”
From “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice Assistants and Hermeneutic Lemniscate as the Technologically Mediated Sense-Making (2021) · cites this paper as Kudina and Verbeek 2019
Following the technological mediation approach, this encounter can proceed along the lines of co-shaping moral perceptions, actions and values of people.
“Following the technological mediation approach, this encounter can proceed along the lines of co-shaping moral perceptions, actions (Verbeek 2011) and values of people (Kudina 2019).”
From “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice Assistants and Hermeneutic Lemniscate as the Technologically Mediated Sense-Making (2021) · cites this paper as Kudina 2019
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
- 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.
- Chenail, Ronald J. 2011. "YouTube as a Qualitative Research Asset: Reviewing User Generated Videos as Learning Resources." The Qualitative Report 16 (1): 229-35.
- Collingridge, David. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Mar- tin's Press.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Mayer-Scho ¨nberger, Viktor. 2009. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- 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.
- Roessler, Beate, and Dorota Mokrosinska. 2013. "Privacy and Social Interaction." Philosophy & Social Criticism 39 (8): 771-91.
- Solove, Daniel J. 2002. "Conceptualizing Privacy."California Law Review 90 (4): 1087-155.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Taylor, Nick. 2002. "State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy." Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 66-85.
- van de Poel, Ibo. 2011. "Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment." Ethics, Policy & Environment 14 (3): 285-90.
- van de Poel, Ibo. 2013. "Why New Technologies should be Conceived as Social Experiments." Ethics, Policy & Environment 16 (3): 352-55.
- van de Poel, Ibo. 2016. "An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Tech- nology." Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 667-86.
- Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2005. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technol- ogy, Agency, and Design. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2010. "Accompanying Technology: Philosophy of Technology after the Ethical Turn." Techne´: Research in Philosophy and Technology 14 (1): 49-54.
- Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2011. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- 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/.
- 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
Towards transparency by design for artificial intelligence
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00276-4 · Cited by 588 · see citing works
The co-constitution of ageing and technology: a model and agenda
Peine, A., & Neven, L. (2021) · Ageing and Society · doi:10.1017/s0144686x20000641 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Values in responsible research and innovation: from entities to practices
Boenink, M., & Kudina, O. (2020) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1806451 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Self-citationOrtega-Bolaños, R., Bernal-Salcedo, J., Germán Ortiz, M., Galeano Sarmiento, J., Ruz, G. A., & Tabares-Soto, R. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10740-3 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Kudina, O. (2021) · Human Studies · doi:10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“Following the technological mediation approach, this encounter can proceed along the lines of co-shaping moral perceptions, actions (Verbeek 2011) and values of people (Kudina 2019).”
Self-citationBenjamin, J. J., Lindley, J., Edwards, E., Rubegni, E., Korjakow, T., Grist, D., & Sharkey, R. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3660677 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Kudina, Olya
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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