An informed view on consent for UbiComp

Abstract

Ubiquitous computing systems tend to be complex, seamless, data-driven and interactive. Reacting to both context, and users' implicit actions resulting from the lived experience, they cast all traces of human life as potential 'data'. To augment users' endeavours, such systems are necessarily embedded below the line of human attention, drawing upon new and highly sensitive types of data. This begs the question, where is the moment of user consent and how can this moment be truly informed? We would argue that it is time to revisit our design principles in respect of consent and redress the balance of agency towards the user. We draw upon a series of multidisciplinary interviews with experts to (a) reframe consent for ubicomp, and (b) offer three indicative principles, supportive of consent, for designers to 'balance' against system functionality. We hope that this will afford a new prism through which designers might make value judgements.

Implementing ethics for a mobile app deployment

“…We chose this design for several reasons: firstly it is fair that if a user wishes to compare with others then they should make their data available for comparison; secondly, supplying this data is not necessary for accessing the core functionality of the app and therefore ought to be optional; and thirdly users will have had some time to familiarise themselves with the app before deciding to give away any information about themselves. Our approach is partially in line with McMillan et al's (2013) concept of "incremental rewards" for providing data, and with Luger and Rodden's (2013) notion of "scaffolding". Again, we also did not want to put users off, which we feared would be the case if we ask for information before they see the app.…”

“…Frauenberger et al (2016) and Munteanu et al (2015) argue that there should be more flexibility in making ethical decisions as work progresses, there should be on-going dialogue within teams and with ethics committees, and better opportunities to share knowledge and lessons learned with others. Similarly, Luger and Rodden (2013) argue that people should be given time to understand technologies and what it means to participate in a study of that technology. As Mu et al (2015) point out, researchers themselves often also need the opportunity to discover and refine their understanding of the relevant ethical issues with new technology.…”

“…Cairns & Thimbleby (2003) warn formalisation and ethical reviews are not directly in the interest of research participants, but serve as a way of limiting legal liability and protecting the researcher and their institution. Luger & Rodden (2013) discuss informed consent, warning that the formalisation of ethics is turning what should be a social relationship into a "point of severance" between subject and their data. Bidwell & Hardy (2009), Brereton et al (2014, and Friedman & Kahn (2003) point out that formal research ethics are based on a specific, not universal, epistemology and value set.…”

“This has to be the cats”

“…We are aware of calls for new models of informed consent in systems design [11], however the point we would draw attention to here is that the 'up front' nature of the occasioning of accounts is misleading. Rather, it is the case that each and every account is occasioned, in our case by the researcher asking household members to inspect and talk through particular representations of the data.…”

Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal–Computer Interaction

“…Luger and Rodden [23] argue that, as ubiquitous computing systems become more complex and seamless, and support an increasing range of daily activities, the data that drives their functionalities is increasingly abstracted from its original context; this makes it impossible for (human) users to understand the implications of their interactions with such systems and thus provide informed consent to the use of data they divulge during the course of those interactions. In this respect, the authors emphasise the dynamic nature of consent and the importance of enabling effective withdrawal at any time; they also stress the importance of giving users visibility over data flows within systems and the ability to easily interrogate the system to evaluate the cost-benefit trade-offs of engaging or withdrawing.…”