Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 95–102 | Cite as

The model gap: cognitive systems in security applications and their ethical implications

  • Tobias MatznerEmail author
Open Forum

Abstract

The use of cognitive systems like pattern recognition or video tracking technology in security applications is becoming ever more common. The paper considers cases in which the cognitive systems are meant to assist human tasks by providing information, but the final decision is left to the human. All these systems and their various applications have a common feature: an intrinsic difference in how a situation or an event is assessed by a human being and a cognitive system. This difference, which here is named “the model gap,” is analyzed pertaining to its epistemic role and its ethical consequences. The main results are as follows: (1) The model gap is not a problem, which might be solved by future research, but the central feature of cognitive systems. (2) The model gap appears on two levels: the aspects of the world, which are evaluated, and the way they are processed. This leads to changes in central concepts. While differences on the first level often are the very reason for the deployment of cognitive systems, the latter is hard to notice and often goes unreflected. (3) Such a missing reflection is ethically problematic because the human is meant to give the final judgment. It is particularly problematic in security applications where it might lead to a conflation of descriptive and normative concepts. (4) The idea of the human operator having the last word is based on an assumption of independent judgment. This assumption is flawed for two reasons: The cognitive system and the human operators form a “hybrid system” the components of which cannot be assessed independently; and additional modes of judgment might pose new ethical problems.

Keywords

Model gap Cognitive systems Security ethics Smart CCTV Drone UAV 

References

  1. Ackerman MS (2000) The intellectual challenge of cscw: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human Comput Interact 15(2):179–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bezdec J (1994) What is computational intelligence? In: Zurada JM, Marks RJ, Robinson CJ (eds) Computational intelligence imitating life. IEEE Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop C (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Information Science and Statistics, Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker GC, Star SL (2000) Sorting things out—classification and its consequences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Brey P (2000) Disclosive computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Comput Soc 30(4):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brey P (2005) The epistemology and ontology of human-computer interaction. Minds Mach 15(3–4):383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark A (2001) Reasons, robots and the extended mind. Mind Lang 16(2):121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark A, Chalmers DJ (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Vries SC (2005) UAVs and control delays. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA454251. Accessed 16 Sept 2013
  10. Dixon SR, Wickens CD (2006) Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: a reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Fact J Human Fact Ergon Soc 48(3):474–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon SR, Wickens CD, Chang D (2005) Mission control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles: a workload analysis. Human Fact J Human Fact Ergon Soc 47(3):479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreyfus H (1992) What computer still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhart RC (2007) Computational intelligence: concepts to implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway D (1991) A cyborg manifesto—science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Simians, Cyborgs and Women (eds) The reinvention of nature. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu W, Tan T, Wang L, Maybank S (2004) A survey on visual surveillance of object motion and behaviors. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(3):334–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Introna L (2005) Disclosive ethics and information technology: disclosing facial recognition systems. Ethics Inf Technol 7(2):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macnish K (2012) Unblinking eyes: the ethics of automating surveillance. Ethics Inf Technol 14(2):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norman DA (1993) Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Addison-Wesley Longman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Parasuraman R, Barnes M, Cosenzo K (2007) Adaptive automation for human-robot teaming in future command and control systems. The International C2 Journal 1(2):43–68Google Scholar
  20. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson D (1992) Implications of neural networks for how we think about brain function. Behav Brain Sci 15:644–655Google Scholar
  22. Stamou G, Vogiatzis D, Stov S (1999) Bridging the gap between subsymbolic and symbolic techniques: A pragmatic approach. In: CSCC’99, Circuits systems communications and computers, Athens, July 1999Google Scholar
  23. Turk M, Pentland A (1991) Face recognition using eigenfaces. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, 1991. Proceedings CVPR’91., IEEE computer society conference, pp 586–591Google Scholar
  24. Van der Ploeg I (1999) The illegal body: ‘Eurodac’ and the politics of biometric identification. Ethics Inf Technol 1:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van der Ploeg I (2005) Biometrics and the body as information: normative issues of the socio-technical coding of the body. In: Lyon D (ed) Surveillance as social sorting. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations