Introduction: The Impact, Benefits, and Hazards of PICT

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter opens with an extended definition and description of pervasive information and communication technology (PICT) as a sociotechnical system – in brief, an intertwined system of social practices and the technologies that make the social practices possible which in turn spur technological revision and innovation that simultaneously modify or transform social practices in a never-ending spiral. It then describes the following ten chapters. Chapter 2 presents and analyzes three case studies of actual recent events that highlight key aspects of PICT. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 tackle surveillance from three different angles, but together provide a primer on the ethical issues involved. Chapters 3, 6, and 7 focus on health care, an area of significant growth for PICT. Chapter 8 considers a particular type of PICT – augmented reality – and reveals its far-from-obvious ramifications. Chapter 9 provides a different kind of case study as a social scientist describes her experience working with technologists developing PICT with the goal (successfully achieved) of making ethics a design goal. Chapters 10 and 11 focus more narrowly on ethical guidance for PICT.

References

  1. Ad Hoc Committee for Responsible Computing. 2010. Moral responsibility for computing artifacts: Five rules. Available at https://edocs.uis.edu/kmill2/www/TheRules/. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  2. Cooper, Michael, and Jo Craven, McGinty. 2012. A meter so expensive, it creates parking spots. New York Times, March 15. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-the-streets-of-san-francisco-easier-to-park-on.html. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  3. Crosier, Scott. n.d. John Snow: The London cholera epidemic of 1854. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. Available at http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/8. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  4. Johnson, Deborah G. 2010. The role of ethics in science and engineering. Trends in Biotechnology 28(12): 589–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson, Deborah G. 2011. Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and accountability. In The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem, ed. Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, and Joseph R. Herkert, 61–76. Dordrecht/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller, Keith W. 2010. Moral responsibility for computing artifacts: The rules (index page). Available at https://edocs.uis.edu/kmill2/www/TheRules/. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  7. Richtel, Matt. 2011. Now, to find a parking spot, drivers look on their phones. New York Times, May 7. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08parking.html. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  8. Rutenberg, Jim. 2012. Secret of the Obama victory? Rerun watchers, for one thing. New York Times, November 12. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/politics/obama-data-system-targeted-tv-viewers-for-support.html. Verified 8 Feb 2013.
  9. Toumi, Habib. 2011. Who coined ‘Arab spring’? Gulf News, December 17. Available at http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/who-coined-arab-spring-1.952310. Verified 8 Feb 2012.
  10. Tyrer, L. 1999. Introduction of the pill and its impact. Contraception 59(1 Suppl): 11S-16S (January). PMID: 10342090. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10342090. Verified 8 Feb 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poynter CenterIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations