A general trend in technology surrounding us in our day-to-day living is towards more disruptive devices, often foisted upon us without our consent. Even devices that we choose to purchase (e.g. computers, consumer electronics) often act "against" us. Computers with very inflexible operating systems "impose" their will upon us. In certain cases, they may even act as instruments of surveillance (e.g. reporting back to vendors).
The "smart" rooms, devices, and interfaces we see today many times reflect a design perspective which creates technologies which have the ability to monitor, observe and report on their users. Furthermore, these technologies rarely reveal their inner workings, supposedly for the safety and convenience of the user.
This undesirable class of technology is founded on one or more of the following three principles:
Building, into the design of technology, the underlying assumption that users are either malicious or incompetent can tend toward being a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the sense that such systems often deny users the self-determination that leads to free-spirited creativity and self-actualization.
It is thus understandable that in this current technological climate, many people are wary about the advent of wearable computers, viewing them as nothing more than the utmost extension of tools used for the constant and external control and monitoring of individuals. Often people will remark: "Wearable computers? Oh great, now have to do work all the time, wherever I am..." or "Wearable computers will only allow the government and corporations to track my every move."
Wisely designed technology, having taken into account the concerns above, need not be about external control. In fact, the 'killer app' of wearable computing may very well be the personal empowerment of the individual. Wearable computing will allow us to explore the full potential of many modern technologies and ideas without requiring us to sacrifice our freedom or privacy. Instead of the current vision of "smart floors", "smart lightswitches", and "smart toilets" that watch us and respond to our actions, what we will witness is the emergence of "smart people".
The "smart" card systems common nowadays provide an example of how "smart clothing" can replace the current surveillance infrastructure. Smart card systems replace keys with electronic access cards which are swiped on door mounted card readers to unlock the door. A similar technology uses badges which are tracked by the environment.
Card keys and active badges both represent technologies that either keep track of where individual people are located, or comprise hardware that has the potential to do so. It is a wonder that there is not more widespread concern regarding the privacy implications of such a system.
Both the card key and active badge systems rely on a "smart" element built into the architecture (card reader or IR receiver) and a "dumb" element (card or beacon) carried or worn by the user. The "smart" element is networked to a central computer system, while the "dumb" element has no communications or networking capability whatsoever.
Suppose, however, that we swap the two. Suppose that the user carries or wears the "smart" element, and the building architecture is endowed with the "dumb" element. Thus, for example, the user might wear the infa red (IR) receiver, and have this connected to his/her `smart clothing', while numerous beacons would be distributed throughout the building. This means that there is no need to network the beacons, no need to wire the building. The system relies on the communications infastructure each user wears.
However, now the location of the user is known to the user's clothing, and thus the user has control over who can and cannot know his/her location. A user might, for example, define an access control list comprising faculty advisor, thesis advisor, colleagues, etc.. The user's clothing would automatically encrypt the user's location (as determined by the last beacon "seen" by the user's clothing) and transmit this information to the desired recipients. Any interception of this communications would be unintelligible to those not on the access control list.
We should be wary, however, not to jump too eagerly on the wearable bandwagon. After all, not all wearable technology enhances self-determination and control over personal destiny. For instance, by denying the wearer the locus of control, some wearable technology works "against" rather than "for" the wearer. This has, at times, both throughout history and in the present day, been used to enslave, imprison, or control the wearer. Tracking devices, such as active badges, may be used to monitor the location of a prisoners, for instance. Some such devices have the capability of providing an "electrical corrective signal" (euphemism for pain-giving electric shock). Even wearable computers whose programs cannot be analyzed or changed could potentially work surrepticiously against the user.
Thus, the functionality of existential technology should be known or knowable to the wearer, either directly (through a knowledge of its operation) or indirectly (through a potential knowledge of its operation). There should be no attempt to obscure or hide the functionality of the technology. For example, the system should have complete source code for all its functions (in the context of the present invention, the Linux operating system is used, which includes source code for everything including the kernel). Not that all (or even a small percentage of) users would have time or ability to fully understand the complete source code, but, rather, such disclosure forms panopticon-in-reverse: it would serve to keep the systems designers on their best-behaviour at all times.
Under the user's control, and wearable computer is not a tool of government or corporations, but a technology which empowers individuals. In a recent online forum, the issue of wearable technology was raised, and many expressed their fear about wearable computing only bringing us close to the creation of an "Orwellian" future. In an email to this forum, Steve Mann wrote:
"it is understandable that many find this invention repulsive, especially given the recent trend toward the "smart uniforms" approach in which it's employer owned technology of covernment (government+corporate) surveillance. however, i believe we're in the "golden age" of wearable computing in which we, as individuals, can still shape its course. it is up to us to decide whether we launch this invention as a tool of surveillance and control, or, alternatively, to tame the technology monster with a piece of itself."
