Social analysis and collateral impact of pervasive technologies

1. Social analysis and collateral impact of pervasive technologies CNIT - TN

2. Conception of the personal sphere (privacy) and use of Pervasive Technologies (PTs) Formation, diffusion and social reproduction of norms and rules of conduct concerning PTs Implementation, adoption and use of pervasive technologies (PTs) by private and public institutions Evaluation of the social impact of pervasive technologies

3. Impact of PTs on individual and group behavior Impact of PTs on individual behavior and privacy concerns Institutional rules of conduct concerning the adoption and use of PTs

4. Two main problems Pervasive technologies can reduce social space and divisions and induce individuals and groups to manipulate personal boundaries of knowledge and trust  threats to privacy When public and private institutions use such technologies they put stress on boundaries that have been culturally and historically established  emphasis on control

5. The introduction of PTs in daily life is seen as the progressive reduction of the separation between the controller and the controlled between experts vs non experts. • We know little, but that the rules concerning their use are vague or culturally constrained and that the user (controller or controlled) is often unaware of the threats and the communication processes associated.

6. First aim of our study ....is to know more about the impact of pervasive technologies on individual users and specifically: • their relational attitudes towards technology adoption (privacy awareness); • the rules of conduct that they use when communicating with different types of subjects (friends, family, acquaintances); • and users’ awareness about the release of personal details (privacy trade-off).

7. Research design In order to evaluate these aspects we need to know how people conceive the relation between pervasive technologies and individual freedom and how much privacy concerns are socially perceived (and expressed) in specific groups of the population. Two levels of analysis: • Individual users • Group users

8. Research design Two different types of experiments (test A and test B) will be developed on two types of users Experts/ non experts A questionnaire concerning impact and use of communication technologies will be delivered to all the subjects.

9. Research design

10. Test B (individual) • Goal: Identification of attitudes pro/versus technologies in relation with protection of the personal sphere. • Stimulus: short stories and vignettes with anticipated / non anticipated consequences of privacy data disclosure. • Main focus on: locus of control and levels of personal responsibility (ego, close friends and family, third part) and decision about the disclosure of personal information

11. Two levels of analysis • Individual users • Group users Two different types of experiments will be developed on two types of users: Experts/ non experts A questionnaire concerning impact and use of communication technologies will be delivered to all the subjects.

12. Test A (group) • Goal: Evaluation of the impact of PTs on identity management and personal information exchange in closed communities (ex.class) • Stimulus: communication of personal details among friends and classmates.ù • Main focus on: privacy as a property of the individual/personal network of relations that can be disclosed intentionally (ex. with friends, partners, etc..) or violated by others (ex. rumors in contagion and influence models).

13. EGO Personal relations of Ego

14. Personal relations of Ego • What about the use of PTs to maintain, and develop the personal relations of Ego? • Are there differences between the use of PTs for personal contacts with family, friends, acquaintances etc. • Which rules of conduct are in use in communication and privacy disclosure with different type of subjects?

15. Second aim of our study • The implementation of PTs in daily living is strictly linked with economic chances and reproduces differentiation processes (culture, behaviour, opinions) inside social groups and in society. • In reality the type of privacy associated with such technologies is institutionally mediated; so the old juxtaposition between experts and non experts is still underlying. • Threat of social surveillance

16. Second aim of our study We are interested in the emergence and establishment of a specific domain of knowledge concerning the use of PTs in daily living and communication. The case study considered concerns the impact of PTs and specifically monitoring technologies in the home and domestic spaces (smart house, hospices, intelligent building). The study is based on literature and survey data.

17. Dissemination • Paper on social impact of technology on privacy concerns - Session at ACSIS- INTER conference (Sweden) • Conference on Technology and Society