Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 11–18 | Cite as

Augmented reality, augmented ethics: who has the right to augment a particular physical space?

  • Erica L. NeelyEmail author
Original Paper


Augmented reality (AR) blends the virtual and physical worlds such that the virtual content experienced by a user of AR technology depends on the user’s geographical location. Games such as Pokémon GO and technologies such as HoloLens are introducing an increasing number of people to augmented reality. AR technologies raise a number of ethical concerns; I focus on ethical rights surrounding the augmentation of a particular physical space. To address this I distinguish public and private spaces; I also separate the case where we access augmentations via many different applications from the case where there is a more unified sphere of augmentation. Private property under a unified sphere of augmentation is akin to physical property; owners retain the right to augment their property and prevent others from augmenting it. Private property with competing apps is more complex; it is not clear that owners have a general right to prevent augmentations in this case, assuming those augmentations do not interfere with the owner’s use of the property. I raise several difficult cases, such as augmenting a daycare with explicit sexual or violent images. Public property with competing apps is relatively straightforward, and most augmentation is ethical; those apps simply function like different guidebooks. Under a unified sphere of augmentation it is unclear whether augmentations should be treated more like public speech (which we value) or graffiti (which we do not) or (most likely) some of each. Further consideration is needed to determine what kinds of augmentations we view as ethical.


Augmented reality Property rights Ownership Ethics of technology Pokémon GO 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. Acquisti, A., Gross, R., & Stutzman, F. (2014). Face recognition and privacy in the age of augmented reality. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 6(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of warcraft. Irvine: Blizzard Entertainment.Google Scholar
  3. Brinkman, B. (2014). Ethics and pervasive augmented reality: Some challenges and approaches. In K. D. Pimple (Ed.), Emerging pervasive information and communication technologies (PICT): Ethical challenges, opportunities and safeguards (pp. 149–175). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cifrino, C. J. (2014). Virtual property, virtual rights: Why contract law, not property law, must be the governing paradigm in the law of virtual worlds. Boston College Law Review, 55(1), 235–264.Google Scholar
  5. Dainow, B. (2014). Ethics in emerging technology. Itnow, 56(3), 16–18. Scholar
  6. Doshi, A., Smith, R. T., Thomas, B. H., & Bouras, C. (2016). Use of projector based augmented reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Scholar
  7. Feng, S., Caire, R., Cortazar, B., Turan, M., Wong, A., & Ozcan, A. (2014). Immunochromatographic diagnostic test analysis using Google Glass. ACS Nano, 8(3), 3069–3079. Scholar
  8. Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H. (2000). New directions: A value-sensitive design approach to augmented reality. In DARE 2000: Design of Augmented Reality Environments, Elsinore, Denmark (pp. 163–164). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Glushko, B. (2007). Tales of the (Virtual) city: Governing property disputes in virtual worlds. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22(1), 507–532.Google Scholar
  10. Horowitz, S. J. (2007). Competing lockean claims to virtual property. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 20(2), 443–458.Google Scholar
  11. Linden Research Inc. (2003). Second life. San Francisco: Linden Research Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Locke, J. (1689/1988). Two treatises of government (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., & Hirose, M. (2011). Augmented reality flavors: Gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Nelson, J. W. (2011). A virtual property solution: How privacy law can protect the citizens of virtual worlds. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 36(2), 395–420.Google Scholar
  15. Niantic Inc. (2016). Pokémon GO. San Francisco: Niantic Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Peterson, A. (2016). Holocaust Museum to visitors: Please stop catching Pokémon here. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  17. Roesner, F., Kohno, T., & Molnar, D. (2014). Security and privacy for augmented reality systems. Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/1997). The social contract. In V. Gourevitch (Ed.), The social contract and other later political writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Strikwerda, L. (2012). Theft of virtual items in online multiplayer computer games: An ontological and moral analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 89–97. Scholar
  20. Strikwerda, L. (2014). Should virtual cybercrime be regulated by means of criminal law? A philosophical, legal-economic, pragmatic and constitutional dimension. Information & Communications Technology Law, 23(1), 31–60. Scholar
  21. Wassom, B. D. (2015). Augmented reality law, privacy, and ethics: Law, society, and emerging AR technologies. Waltham: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Wolf, M. J., Grodzinsky, F., & Miller, K. (2015). Augmented reality all around us: Power and perception at a crossroads. ACM Computers and Society, 45(3), 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and ReligionOhio Northern UniversityAdaUSA

Personalised recommendations