[LINK] tech neutrality [was: ID theft brings tech to law]

[Jan Whitaker]

At 09:16 AM 18/09/2007, Karl Auer wrote:
>I'd like to see a concrete example, where the technology itself is
>relevant to its misuse. Can't think of pone off the top of my head. It
>seems to me that "passing off" whether a product or am identity, can be
>clearly enough defined to make identity theft and the preparation for
>identity theft illegal, without needing to specify any specific
>technologies at all.

I sent this to the privacy list just now:

"hallelujah! I've scoffed at 'technology neutral' for years. 
Colleagues may have supported it; I don't know. But being trained in 
a range of communication technologies for years myself, starting back 
in the 1970s, it was obvious to me that the various capabilities of 
different technologies made this approach a nonsense. And if 
technology-neutrality was a starting point, the resulting decisions 
and policies would be so over-simplified they would be worthless. 
Well guess what! Thanks for putting that view publicly, Stephen.
Technology does NOT = computers alone either."

I'm going to try and respond so I can clarify my thinking and maybe 
get some input from Linkers, too.

- I think I agree with Karl's premise that ID theft is not the real 
thing that is the problem. But if that is the catalyst that gets rid 
of the simplistic approach that is based on 'technology neutral', so be it
- technology is too broad a term to start with. It doesn't deal with 
the various aspects of different technologies and how they can be 
used to be intrusive and beyond community acceptable in how they are 
used. It's like the 'blind men and the elephant', with each of the 
blind men touching a different part of the animal and having a mental 
image of what they are grappling with
- too many bureaucrats/policy makers think technology = computers. 
They miss the distinctions of: visual, audio, data, biometrics 
measuring devices, networks, micro and macro sensors, tracking (which 
implies motion), medical devices like pacemakers and replacement body 
parts, transportation, information storage etc etc.
- some aspects of regulation, law and policy can be based on 
principles, but others can't because the principles haven't emerged 
over long enough time; the capabilities developed by the 
technology(ies) are not understood; there aren't enough examples of 
'good' and 'bad' applications to sift down into principles
- Technology evaluation is contextual (another reason that technology 
neutral doesn't work). The stage of development and the amount of 
local determination can have an effect on who and how a technology 
fits. It may make perfect sense to have CCTV cameras around a bank or 
the mint, but less so around a dressing room, even though the theft 
of clothing may be more likely than the theft of money from the other 
two places. That is a guess, but wouldn't surprise me if it's true. 
Developing countries or locals may be better off leap-frogging 
technologies and grappling with things like mobile networked 
technologies rather than hardwiring villages.

I think I'll stop there and see what the Link Institute has to say 
about these ideas.

Jan


Jan Whitaker
JLWhitaker Associates, Melbourne Victoria
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
personal: http://www.janwhitaker.com/personal/
commentary: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/

Writing Lesson #78: In writing, 'do overs' are a 'good thing' -- and 
a requirement. - JW, Sept, 2007

Writing Lesson #54:
Learn to love revision. Think of it as polishing the silver for 
guests. - JW, May, 2007

'Seed planting is often the most important step. Without the seed, 
there is no plant.' - JW, April 2005
_ __________________ _