The whereabouts of virtue and middle

In an attack of tragic consequences, Alison Parker and Adam Ward, Virginia's WDBJ7 TV Station team members were killed during a live broadcast. The suspect, apparently a former WDBJ7 employee, is reported to have shot himself and died later on the same day.

Earlier this year, a bionic eye implant allowed a man to start seeing, or at least outlining things and people again after over 10 years of blindness.

Both these episodes, by highlighting present features of the dialogue between technology and various aspects of human life, allow us to reflect on its future.

In the case of the journalists, the video that was recorded during the shooting to be posted in the aggressor’s social network profiles - yes, that day has come - shows he lifted the weapon, for some reason decided not to shoot during some seconds in which the gun seems to have been put down or hidden, and then lifted it again, this time unfortunately to complete the action. It is true that there's no surveillance or public security resource in massive and ordinary use nowadays that could have automatically prevented the tragedy, but the mere potential already serves the purpose of this reasoning exercise. If we extrapolate the idea of an optimized preemptive policing system, that could very well make extensive use (and perhaps even control) of all kinds of sensors and pattern recognition applications, individual's cell phone cameras there included, that second of hesitation could possibly be enough for an automated response, or at least for the possibility of launching a warning or triggering an emergency remote mechanism through a device close by, with a chance of saving lives (Behavior prediction algorithms are also a possibility, but having already touched a point of sufficient controversy, let us leave this further issue aside for the time being).

Bringing the second circumstance to the table, the fact that an external device has been implemented into someone's body is not exactly new, and does not present the possibility of collecting data from within a person's body for the first time. It opens, however, the possibility not only to collect but to record for further retrieval everything someone's eyes see and witness, or even the direction where they look! The referred experiment evidently does not mention recording or collecting the images it generates, transmitting and storing every second would be an issue (although not exactly a serious obstacle), and the current quality of the result is only enough, as already mentioned, to outline things and people, without any detail richness. But again it is the possibility, rather than the state-of-the art, that drives this reasoning exercise.

In both cases, at some point in time we will have to ask and work in an answer for the obvious question whether we want human behavior to be permanently monitored, prevented, controlled or even sanctioned and punished automatically, through remote devices. And, as it seems the answer won't fit in a binary "Yes/No" option, the debate should then move on to explore the conditions under which such things would be acceptable.

It's a long way until we have a proper framework to tackle these issues, and for now what seems possible to foresee is that plausible developing scenarios will not emerge from existing extreme views, whatever side they advocate, and this impression that virtue will stand in the middle comes from the consideration of three basic arguments which can help build a foundation of reasonable grounds over which this new layer of human interaction can develop.

First, it is not logical to see that crime has long gone digital, where it is growingly sophisticating its alternatives, and to expect that State law-enforcement authorities be limited to conventional procedures, resources and techniques. It does not make any sense. Authorities obviously cannot and should not be allowed to move at their own will or spy freely online, without proper oversight mechanisms and without considering basic limits that correspond to essential guarantees of citizenship. But as long as we do not find a better structure than the State to perform the functions related to Public Security it has to perform them, and it has to be granted appropriate resources to provide the basic assistance that society, in the end of the day, will demand it provides. In a very recent development in this matter, for instance, the first UN Rapporteur on privacy issues, Professor Joseph Cannataci, advanced that his mandate will defend an international convention on digital surveillance as one of the ways to tackle the issue from a global perspective. There has to be a balance, and we must work on it. Now.

Second, it is hard to think of an adequate strategy in this realm today that does not rise from the multistakeholder perspective. Multistakeholderism may not yet be very well understood, even by the ones who are closest involved with it, not all players are equal, nor all of them have the same weight or exercise the same influence in the same issues, it is certainly not a perfect governance model, but the experiences where it is being employed – internet governance as a main successful example – show that it is still a very interesting and constructive option for managing conflicting interests from different segments of society and to coordinate governance processes in organizations where these different segments must be heard and take part in decision and policy making. In times when issues such as representation and legitimacy can no longer be taken for granted and face a serious crisis, the rise of the alternatives that multistakeholderism present should not be neglected. Such a multi participative process had already been thought of before, but is now finally possible due to the effective existence of a digital and interconnected environment where necessary interactions can take place. And internet governance is probably the first large and certainly the most relevant global issue that can be conducted under such paradigm. Once again. There has to be balance, and it has to be found.

Finally, any strategy to deal with those ethical inquietudes will necessary touch, to some extent, the tripod of data, sensors and algorithms. They are technical improvements that serve incredibly interesting purposes, that can enormously improve lives of human beings all over the planet, and we have the obligation of seizing their functionality while making our best to prevent, manage or eventually neutralize their negative uses. Sensors extend human capabilities of perceiving, the data they generate is the raw material from which new solutions can be thought of, and current quantities of them make it impossible for people to analyze and extract meaningful information or value by themselves. This forces us to accept the fact that we are going to live with some degree of automation, and we have to find a way to demand and ensure processes that are transparent, accountable and that allow a human semantic interference and control whenever we find it necessary. It starts with balance and it ends with balance.

To make things even more difficult, these changes and developments happen so fast that they do not allow us the time that society used to have for the necessary reflection. This is neither a purely scientific concern nor mere academic whining, but a plain fact. From the time a new alternative in this context rises to the point it becomes a trend or even fully incorporates into a social practice, the community hardly has the time to read about it, get acquainted with it, let alone discuss, elaborate, mature, ponder or scrutinize it. It is difficult to find a balanced way of dealing with ever-changing realities whose characteristics are more and more complex, whose consequences are more and more transversal and interconnected to different interests and values, and to which one is exposed for such a short period time.

That is the challenge of a generation: to make the most of the potentialities that sensors, data and algorithms present, to find a rational balance to deal with their growing presence while preserving civil liberties, fundamental rights and the essence – for the good and for the bad – of being human, to find this balance with legitimacy, collaboratively, using the very potential of wide participation these tools offer, and to find this balance under constant pressure, since the dynamics of the context neither allows deep and long-lasting thinking nor static, immutable decisions.

It still seems acceptable that in medio stat virtus, that virtue stands in the middle. But in the dynamics of such complex dialogues, it is hard to find where the middle is – mainly no longer knowing exactly what is virtue.