Technology Is Not Neutral: A Short Guide to Technology Ethics

by Stephanie Hare

It seems that just about every new technology that we bring to bear on improving our lives brings with it some downside, side effect or unintended consequence.
These issues can pose very real and growing ethical problems for all of us. For example, automated facial recognition can make life easier and safer for us – but it also poses huge issues with regard to privacy, ownership of data and even identity theft. How do we understand and frame these debates, and work out strategies at personal and governmental levels?
Technology Is Not A Short Guide to Technology Ethics addresses one of today’s most pressing how to create and use tools and technologies to maximize benefits and minimize harms? Drawing on the author’s experience as a technologist, political risk analyst and historian, the book offers a practical and cross-disciplinary approach that will inspire anyone creating, investing in or regulating technology, and it will empower all readers to better hold technology to account.

Genres: Technology, Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

Published February 22, 2022

Reviews

[Snow · Rating 2 out of 5]

What I hoped I would be getting was an easy to read but rigorous critique of the value neutrality thesis. What I got: a misguided summary of the major branches of philosophy poorly applied as a framework against which facial recognition technology and UK COVID response are criticized.

Points for drawing attention to the ill effects of facial recognition, but I cannot recommend a guide on technology ethics that a) asks the reader to simply accept utilitarianism, or b) reads like a Cal Newport style summary of the year's news and newsletters.

I wholeheartedly agree with the author's intent and that there is a need for an approachable text in philosophy of technology and ethics specifically, but this ain't it.

[Lyndsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent - clear, easy to understand and meaningful guide to tech ethics. I will be keeping this on my desk and using for day to day work!

[Coffee & books · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amazing start, until the last chapter on COVID apps, which was based only on England. The previous chapters were discussing what happened all over the world, from China and Japan to US. With COVID was only England and presented in a very biased way, to the point it raised questions on the analysis.

For example: Tories wanted these covid passports (despite them being the ones who scrapped the Labour legislated IDs in 2010), but she glossed over what happened in Wales (Labour) and Scotland (SNP) where health is a devolved matter and they introduced passports BEFORE England, in October, Northern Ireland was from November, and England in mid-December! That's not a good analysis because of her political biases. I would have liked to read about what happened in EU or other parts of UK, but no, there was the focus on what Boris Johnson said in 2004 and repeated again and again.

It's a shame because the first part of the book was really good, it would have been a 5 stars without any doubt.

[Ellen IJzerman (Prowisorio) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zomaar wat quotes die mij (soms zeer) aanspraken ...

Uit Where does responsibility enter the equation? (15%):

I experienced this first hand in 2020 while chairing a conversation between the United Kingdom’s Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, the computer scientist and sex robot theorist Kate Devlin, the philosopher Hilary Lawton, and the cosmologist and theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-­Houghton. Each brought a fascinating, nuanced perspective to the question of whether intelligence requires sentience (the ability to feel, perceive and experience, with a particular emphasis on touch) and consciousness (to have both self-awareness and perception of our surroundings, as well as an awareness of our eventual death), and to how this might relate to being able to assess a situation and respond to it effectively. Their thinking aligned with that of Alison Adam, a professor of science, technology and society at Sheffield Hallam University, who notes that a lot of what we consider to be intelligence cannot exist without embodiment (our existence within our body) or culture.

... of mij misselijk maakten ...

Uit Epistomoly: how can we learn about facial recognition technology? (42%)

Debunked pseudosciences should be something we only ever encounter in history, not something we find in the New York Times in 2021, yet in March of that year one of the founders of Clearview AI told the paper that he and Hoan Ton-That, the company’s CEO, had created their facial recognition technology to explore ‘physiognomy in the modern age with new technologies’. This US-based company has built a database of more than 10 billion face images taken from people’s social media profiles and online photo albums without their consent or knowledge. As of this writing, Clearview’s database is used by more than 3,100 US law enforcement agencies and by the United States Postal Service.

Uit Face analysis: physical (53%)

In October 2020 the BBC investigated the Home Office’s online face checker, which checks only if a person has submitted a valid passport photograph (e.g. eyes open, mouth shut, no smiling). It found that it did not work as well on people with darker skin, with the result that their passport applications were more likely to be rejected.
[knip]
The Home Office had known about this problem since 2019, when it ran trials, but it decided to launch the system anyway. [...] the Home Office gave the following explanation:
User research was carried out with a wide range of ethnic groups and did identify that people with very light or very dark skin found it difficult to provide an acceptable passport photograph. However, the overall performance was judged sufficient to deploy.
This is a powerful example of how utilitarianism’s aim to maximize benefits and minimize harms is flawed. The Home Office is trying to deliver passport services as quickly and cost effectively as possible, which is commendable. However, in deploying facial verification technology that it knew discriminated against people with darker skin, it transferred the cost of its ‘improvement’ onto a minority of citizens, knowing that they would have to go through a confusing, frustrating and even painful experience of technological and bureaucratic racism. It could (nee, niet could, maar SHOULD) have waited to deploy facial verification technology until it worked to a high degree of accuracy for all UK citizens, not just those that fell within a range of skin tones. It chose not to. That says nothing about the technology – it says everything about the government’s values.

Uit Pandemic? There's an app for that (Conclusion) (91%)

However, we must bear in mind that even when the tools themselves worked according to their design specification, the ‘test–trace–isolate’ system of which they were a part did not. That is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the technology or the technologists. Rather, it reflects the government’s struggle to build a testing capacity that could deliver accurate, reliable test results within twenty-four hours and its failure to support many people so that they could afford to self-isolate when exposed to someone with a positive test for the virus.
QR code scanning and exposure notification apps can do little when set against such a broken system. Moreover, by being available only to people who had compatible smartphones, these technologies amplified healthcare inequalities across the population.

Uit: Do we need a Hippocratic oath for Technology? (94%)

Hippocratic Oath for science and technology:
I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.

* benadrukking tekst is meestal door mij gedaan

[Anders · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a bit skeptical of this book when i bought it as the biography of the author stated work places that you would not associate with technology ethics. I bought it anyway to broaden my views and found that I was clearly wrong in my assumptions.

The book outline a method to understand technology and the implications of using technology from six different views: metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, logic, aesthetics and ethics. The book contain two examples for applying these views, facial recognition and the response to Covid-19, to evaluate technology associated. The book is quite short, and I would have liked it to have more examples. A great useful read of those who think and worry about technology in our society and the implications thereof.

[Hydra · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the beginning the book starts very well with reviewing both sides of the coin of 'technology is (not) neutral'. It is a pity only two big cases (facial recognition and covid app (the last one only regards England)) are investigated. The facial recognition case is viewed from six main stream types of philosophy, I'm quite curious how that would have been applied to the covid app case and possible other cases, at that point I was severely disappointed because that wasn't applied anymore. The necessary final editing would have been welcome here! More diverse cases (with some less depth) would have helped to enlarge the value of the book.
A lot of notes makes it easy to take up next steps.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love how detail focused a lot of the book is, really illustrating the talking points on the wider issues. I will return to the book and apply the (philosophical) approach to other technologies that worry or are relevant to me (gaming)