Functions of Technology: Art, Appliance, Weapon (Rao 2019)

Image result for evil alexa

People invent things. This is a truth that makes humans who we are -- it has allowed us to conquer our environments and each other for centuries, millennia even. But why? Why do we invent things? In the case of conquering our environment, we invent things to make our lives easier, for the sake of convenience -- we invent things as appliances. In the case of conquering each other, we invent things to give us a military advantage, with the intent to harm and/or dominate others -- we invent things as a weapon. Lastly, sometimes we invent things for the sake of inventing things, because we had an idea and we wanted to execute it -- we invent things as art. However, though these categories may seem distinct, most inventions fall into all three at one time or another, even simultaneously, and technology is no different. Finally, it is important to make these distinctions in function in order to recognize categorical differences in how we think we’re using technology and how the technology may actually be used to help us identify injustices and oversights that lead to discrimination. Though developed for one purpose, inventions (technology included) often are transformed to fit into the other categories as well. Take auditory surveillance -- when first developed, this technology was used as a weapon during the 20th century to spy behind enemy lines. Recently, however, it has been used in devices like Alexa. Alexa uses surveillance technology to listen constantly for commands -- in this way surveillance technology functions as an appliance for the sake of convenience and efficiency (Cornish 2019).

Though it may seem pointless to make these distinctions in function at all when so many inventions naturally fall into more than one category, I argue that recognizing these distinctions is essential for identifying potentials for injustice and discrimination when using new inventions. Consider again Alexa. We think of Alexa as an appliance, but the surveillance technology it relies on has long been considered a weapon. And yet, we accept it into our lives because it functions as an appliance -- though it can be weaponized by hackers, Amazon itself (the company that produces Alexa), the government, etc. Another example is police body cameras. We think of police body cams as an appliance -- they’re supposed to supply objective video recordings to hold police more accountable. However, the way they’re used is much more like a weapon. Many officers are able to choose what to record (negating their objectivity), and the integration of facial recognition software into body cams gives police immense power over the people they record (Cahn 2019). In this way, a police officer is able to gather incredible amounts of data from just doing their normal patrols -- all without the consent of the people they record. This is why it is important to recognize these categorical differences -- so that we are able to recognize the true uses of the things around us and therefore recognize how they might be used to promote discrimination and injustices.

Works Cited

Cahn, Albert Fox. “Opinion | How Bodycams Distort Real Life.” The New York Times, 8 Aug. 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/opinion/bodycams-privacy.html.

Cornish, Gabrielle. “How Music Has Made Auditory Surveillance Possible.” Slate Magazine, 21 Aug. 2019, https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/auditory-surveillance-music-history.html.

Comments

Sydney Otis said…
I agree and think it's important to highlight the true functions of technology. I also think this goes for a lot of other systems we have in the US. Systems as early as agriculture contain a number of appliances and technologies with alternate functions, and I think our current technological advancements were born into systems such as these. I also think it's really easy to just accept things as they are. For example, I know that Siri is probably constantly listening, but I've accepted it to be that way and don't turn it off as I like the convenience. I think a greater value needs to be placed on individual liberty when it comes to technology. Technology and the platforms that come with it have become an influential way of fighting for other justices, but there is still an extreme irony in the fact that you need technology to fight for technological clarity (in regard to functions). I would be incredibly interested in seeing how discussion regarding categorization of functions in technology would play out and how we could go about making significant change without feeding into consumer culture.
Elaine Kim said…
I think your argument is closely related to the question of where we draw the line with invention? When do we stop inventing because we know we shouldn’t not because we can’t? Should we keep ourselves for acting upon ideas for technologies for the sake of preventing the perpetuation of discrimination? While technology can do a lot of good, as you point, it can also perpetuate and magnify a lot of wrong. However, does that mean we should stop inventing until we solve or at least better societal evils?
I'm super interested in this idea of prioritizing clear categorical distinctions for our technologies. I agree that this would help highlight some of the "potentials for injustice" that comprise these inventions. What would this look like, in terms of execution? Would we have a label on all of tech products, acknowledging what is weapon and what is appliance and what is art? Or, like, Sydney mentioned, would anywhere care to check? Maybe the majority is so accustomed to these blurred lines that the weaponry that is Alexa seems trivial to acknowledge. Might we all ignore this label as we do those gov't mandated labels on the processed foods we buy from the grocery store? Who would even decide what belongs in which category?
Eileen Cho said…
I think in some instances, categorizing our technologies can be helpful in reminding ourselves of the different functions which can help us recognize the injustices and discrimination that using technology might make us forget about. However, I'm having a hard time thinking of how this idea can help more nuanced situations. The modern world is characterized by a constant forward movement and need for efficiency and creativity. This means that people will constantly add or reassign functions to objects. People will try to use different objects for uses they aren't intended for--that's what innovation is, and a lot of the time, there are many positive outcomes that better the world. However, there are also times like in 9/11, when airplanes provide an allowance as a terrorist weapon. Overall, it's the intentions that matter more than the function because intentions lead to the function. But because intentions only exist in the minds of individuals, it impossible to even categorize the functions.
Josh Miller said…
I agree with the importance of categorizing our devices to make sure we know what they are being used for. However I think there is a danger in the degree to which this will solve the problem. I think one issue most technology equipped people face today is a mental acknowledgement of the dangers of these technologies without making a change to reassure our privacy. I think most can agree that we've had many moments where we've said to ourselves 'this technology could be doing some serious invasions of my privacy, but i dont know that for sure so i'll keep using it' and then move on even though it could still be dangerous. I think the next step from the ideas you put forward in your post is to mobilize the awareness of the dangers so consumers can make more informed decisions.