Living in a World of Smart Everyday Objects—Social, Economic, and Ethical Implications

Abstract

Visions of Pervasive Computing and ambient intelligence involve integrating tiny microelectronic processors and sensors into everyday objects in order to make them "smart." Smart things can explore their environment, communicate with other smart things, and interact with humans, therefore helping users to cope with their tasks in new, intuitive ways. Although many concepts have already been tested out as prototypes in field trials, the repercussions of such extensive integration of computer technology into our everyday lives are difficult to predict. This article is a first attempt to classify the social, economic, and ethical implications of this development.

eFRIEND: an ethical framework for intelligent environments development

“…Privacy is perhaps the single area of greatest concern in intelligent environments and the most frequently cited ethical issue in the literature surveyed (Aarts, 2004;Bohn et al, 2004;Brey, 2005;Van Heerde, 2006, Brown andAdams, 2007;Albrechtslund, 2007;Chan et al, 2009;Oishi et al, 2010;Sadri, 2011;Caire et al, 2014). Privacy concerns are acknowledged as one of the major inhibitors to the adoption and implementation of smart homes, for example, due to concerns around potential breaches of privacy when devices in the home reveal more information than an individual desires.…”

“…The fact that AmI systems are generally distributed systems in which multiple artificial and human agents collaborate and interact, has raises issues about delegation of control and decision-making, responsibility and accountability, and the blurring of human agency (Rouvroy, 2008;Aarts, 2004;Bohn et al, 2004;Brey, 2005). Questions have been raised about autonomous systems that have a life of their own and about the reliability of the technical infrastructure underpinning such systems (Cook et al, 2009;Bohn et al, 2004).…”

“…Questions have been raised about autonomous systems that have a life of their own and about the reliability of the technical infrastructure underpinning such systems (Cook et al, 2009;Bohn et al, 2004). As artefacts become more and more autonomous and make human intervention unnecessary, questions increasingly arise about who, or what, is ultimately in control of such systems, who is responsible if things go wrong and who is legally liable in such cases?…”

Risk Governance of Pervasing Computing Technologies

“…Regarding the technical risk assessment, studies as those cited in chapter 3 point out the most prevalent technical risks associated with pervasive computing. Many of those studies refer to unmastered complexity as an issue (Hilty et al 2003;Hilty et al 2004;Som et al 2004;Langheinrich/Mattern 2003;Mattern 2003;Bohn et al 2004; Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI) 2006). The cause-effect relationship of pervasive computing networks is not always easy to detect, because a multitude of other smart agents can function as an intervening variable.…”

Designing Smart Living Objects – Enhancing vs. Distracting Traditional Human–Object Interaction

“…Bohn et al [16] classified the social, economic, and ethical implications about developing smart every objects. Kranz et al [19] focused on implementation issues related to prototyping smart objects, covering the hardware, software, and device aspects.…”