In Tech We Trust

Dr. Stephen Harwood (TechnoForeSight / University of Edinburgh, Business School)? Twitter: @drsharwood

Technology is NOT neutral. But what does this imply? Should we trust technology, especially emerging technologies? Should we expect that everyone benefits from technology ‘by default’? In this article I explore some general issues about our relationship with technology

Technology manifests as both the material (i.e. the objects we use in our everyday) and the non-material (e.g. technical knowledge, data). Irrespective, it is a human creation to serve intent. A chair on the beach of an unpopulated island is just an object – it has no meaning in itself since it serves no purpose. However, the chair was once created to serve a purpose. It’s design perhaps served the needs of a disabled person.?Indeed, all technologies are creations to serve purpose, with our intent and values being embedded in our creations (e.g. the land-mine).

However, human ingenuity can find usage that is different from intended use due to the possibilities of use afforded (e.g. how many uses can you think of for an empty 2 litre plastic juice bottle?). Moreover, new technologies have an unknown future (e.g. cloning).

Whatever, technology impacts both people and the environment through its application. Whilst there might be the expectation of applications improving and protecting both people and the environment, is this necessarily the case? With the shift to digital technologies being offered as a service (e.g. SaaS, PaaS and IaaS), what about CyberCrime as a Service – is this CCaaS?

Whilst impacts can potentially be both positive and negative, we cannot overlook the potential entwining of impacts upon both people and the environment. For example, whilst chainsaws enable illegal logging, which can have significant social consequences, such as upon local indigenous communities, sensors can detect and constrain illegal logging.

WELL-BEING

Ultimately and irrespective of the impacts, the effect of technology is upon our well-being. Well-being is concerned with how healthy, happy and/or prosperous we are and can affect us both physically and mentally. There are many elements that contribute to our well-being, both as individuals and collectively, such as our sense of belonging, privacy, health, education, security, wealth and habitat. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Our approach to technology shapes the well-being of us and others. A caring approach to technology will seek to maximise the benefit to individuals, communities and society. However, not all people are caring with some who will, instead, actively exploit others to gain for themselves. This raises the need for both cybersecurity and the education of people about possible threats. However, I propose that the biggest danger is the use of technology by those who do not understand technology, in other words, are ignorant of its unintended consequences. For example, if a country’s welfare system, that we might assume is to improve well-being, is on-line ‘by default’, then how likely are those using the system to be digitally literate and/or to have online access? How much distress might this cause? ?Whilst there is no need to be a technology expert, should decision makers not have a good appreciation about impacts upon well-being of the technology under consideration?

TRUST

Given that technology can have a negative impact on well-being, should we trust technology? However, what does it mean to trust technology? There are many views about what is trust, but they tend to relate to vulnerability. I define trust as

the willingness to be vulnerable to someone or something, with the unquestioned belief that this vulnerability will not be abused either deliberately or unintentionally.

Thus, trust is a relational concept. If we focus upon the relationship between two people, trust requires the reliability and integrity of the person to be trusted[1]. Moreover, trust leads to the willingness to want to do things for that person. Perhaps the same can be said about the human-technology relationship. We look to the reliability of the technology and the belief that we will not be harmed by it. With trust, we will explore, experiment and adopt technology, with the belief that it will benefit us and not harm us. The fear of what technology can do to us, such as destroy jobs, leads to distrust. How many ERP implementations have been plagued by distrust?

Reflecting back upon technology implementation in my previous article about the future of work, this trust – distrust dichotomy suggests that there are two polarised positions of total trust and zero trust relating to all aspects of the way we engage with technology. Between these, there is a continuum suggesting levels of trust and distrust.

?A trusting relationship will lead to such benefits as protection, improvement, equality, empowerment, donations and communication. Its corollary is a zero trust relationship with its corresponding dualities. For example, zero trust arises when there is abuse, damage, discrimination, disempowerment, theft and deception. How much distrust is there of technology? Does this suggest that the challenge for any technology implementation is to move people towards total trust by eliminating reasons for distrust. Indeed, how distrusting are people?

Now in its 22nd year, the Edelman Trust Barometer?provides an insight into “the influence of trust across society”. The most recent report reveals growing distrust in government and the media, especially social media and fake news. This reveals deep distrust of digital social media content. Moreover, there is increasing concerns about the loss of citizen freedoms and rising discrimination. How much of this is related to digital technology? One finding is that whilst lower incomed people have most distrust, the better they are informed, then this converts them to be more trusting. Does this apply to technology? A 2022 IPSOS survey reveals that trust in AI may be improved with better understanding, implying a role for how people develop a better understanding of technology. This issue of trust in technology has been developed by Swiss Re who published in May, 2022, their trust hierarchy for digital technology. Reliability is a basic requirement, followed by security. Nevertheless, the highest level restores the human, highlighting the human need for reassurance that technology is doing what is expected of it. One of the big challenges concerning trust is that when trust is violated, then how is trust restored?

I believe that trust is a precondition for these technologies to thrive, and that trust is the competitive differentiator of our time. ?[Virginia M. (Ginni) Rometty, IBM, 16th May 2019]

With the growth in invasive and increasingly smart technologies, such as surveillance technologies, biometrics, data collection, smartphone apps, then how well do we know what is behind these technologies in terms of what data is being collected, by whom, how used and WHO OWNS? In an age of edge-cloud-core AI enabled computing and all that it entails then the integrated compilation of our data bodies from all sources is a real possibility. This is exacerbated by our willingness, or is it coerced submission, to provide data in order to use digital technologies. Which should be the default: opt-in or opt-out? Whilst the argument might be to protect us and our freedoms, could it also be to control us, with data analytics being use to profile and socially sort us. This perhaps suggests that whilst trust is a precondition for technology adoption, that there is also a need for the commitment from those developing and providing technological solutions to protect us.

COMMITMENT

Commitment is the juxtaposition of trust, but an essential partner to trust. Commitment requires effort to maintain a long-term relationship if the relationship is viewed as important. As a partner, it requires a willingness to be open and honest as well as sensitive to the needs of the other. It is about establishing joint targets and sharing the benefits. This is achieved by clear and timely communications. Confidentiality is paramount. Is this a description of marriage or our relationship with technology? How aligned is this with the desire for transparency, ?respect for privacy and security from technology. Does this mean that those involved in all relating to making technology available are surrogates for technology itself, and thus responsible for technology’s commitment not to harm? Do we need to reassure others of ‘our’ commitment? If commitment breaks down, how quickly does trust disappear?

I can imagine the strength of the trust-commitment partnership among those who were involved in putting humans on the moon, given the, by today’s standards, ‘primitive’ technologies involved.

VALUES

Trust and Commitment can be viewed as a fundament consequence of values. Values are the principles or moral standards that a person, a group of people and, indeed organisations and governments, hold. Given the global dominance of the digital giants in all aspect our lives, then how important are the 'value statements' of these providers of digital technology?

If values are the shaping drivers of behaviour and impacts, and if the well-being of all of us is to be improved then how aligned and shared are these values to the interests of society and the environment.?The three pillars of sustainability highlight the importance of not only environmental issues, but also societal issues (e.g. justice, inclusion and equity) supported by appropriate economic development (e.g. job creation, employee well-being, prosperity, and resource efficiency). Moreover, they are integrated. The economic pillar highlights how values are important within the business domain where much wealth is generated. Many of us want to ‘make money’, with some more successful than others. But, what do we do with this wealth if successful? Does this call for a new model for business, that profiting is acceptable, but only when there is also regard for helping society and the environment. Certainly, Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth, written in 1889, questions the accumulation of wealth and highlights the challenge of addressing inequality and divide. How can wealth be translated into societal benefit? This raises the desirability of hybrid business models that blurs the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit organisations, where it is acceptable to both make money and also do social good.

Since values are a driver for sustainability, then what values do we bring with our engagement with technology at any stage in its life-cycle. How can it help us improve society and the environment? For example, the amount of digital data that organisations generate is growing at a phenomenal rate.?However, how much of it is being used and how much of it can be useful for addressing sustainability issues? This is not a new idea. But, with the integrated capability of the Internet-of-Everything, fast transmission, smart edge-cloud computing and powerful data analytics, then opportunities exist for data to be repurposed for societal benefit.

AND THEN WHAT

I have ended up asking a lot of questions. It is not for me to answer them but to throw them open for public debate. The emerging technologies that have increasing levels of agency, intelligence, integration and distribution raises serious questions about the consequences for well-being in every sense. Within the work-place, the ultimate threat is redundancy, and with the rise of AI and robotics, alongside, drones, 5G, Internet-of-Things, hybrid reality and their growing integration and convergence, this perhaps raises dystopian fears around the future end of work. Can we trust in technology?

The narrative I have presented starts with our well-being, since this our condition at any point in our lives. I will assume we all want to improve well-being, for ourselves and for others. However, our well-being is shaped by our relationships, with trust-commitment being core to this. However, I have linked this back to our values and how our values are the driver for trust-commitment in our relationships and hence for our state of well-being

Through this insight, I suggest that we can better understand why technology, which, in itself has no meaning, is not neutral,. It is in use that technology’s meaning and its lack of neutrality is revealed. Its use embraces how it is brought into being, produced, applied, recycled and disposed of.?An essential component of this are people and the values that underpin all that is embraced by technology's life-cycle. ?I have not mentioned accountability, but if there is a genuine trust-commitment partnership, then should accountability be necessary?

To sum up, if we want to think about technology, its use and its impact, then we have to turn to people, their commitment to protect, their ability to trust that they will not be harmed and the underpinning values that drives all of this. Consequently, it is only in the context of people and how their experiences can be enriched by technology, that such notions as #TechForGood, #Tech4All ,#TrustInTech and #inclusivetech have meaning. We need trust. However, without commitment, trust is meaningless. Moreover, without values, both commitment and trust becomes impossible.

Twitter: @drsharwood

[1] Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.