Ethics and Pervasive Augmented Reality: Some Challenges and Approaches

Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 11)

Abstract

Google has recently announced Project Glass, a plan to embed computers into eyeglasses. Their vision is that technology should “be there when you need it and get out of your way when you don’t.” The main idea behind this technology is called augmented reality. In this chapter I will introduce the main ideas behind augmented reality, and the most interesting examples (so far) of how it is used. I’m most interested, however, in the ethical challenges this technology will present as it becomes pervasive. I describe and explain two examples; augmented reality as an extension of the home (which has privacy implications), and augmented reality advertising (which has implications for property rights and local government). Along the way I will introduce several techniques and concepts that are useful in analyzing the ethics of new technologies, including pervasive information and computing technology (PICT).

Keywords

Virtual Reality Augmented Reality Virtual Object Ethical Challenge Augmented Reality System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Julie Rogers and Brian Breitsch for their helpful feedback on early drafts of this chapter.

References

  1. Akst, J. 2012. The sound of color. The Scientist. http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/01/the-sound-of-color. Accessed 11 June 2012.
  2. Bains, S. 2007. Mixed feelings. Wired 15(4). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/.
  3. Bilton, N. 2012. Behind the Google Goggles, virtual reality. New York Times, p. B1. 23 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Brinkman, B. 2012. Willing to be fooled: Security and autoamputation in augmented reality. In The proceedings of the International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). Nov. 5–8, 2012. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  5. Google. 2012. Project Glass. https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147. Accessed 11 June 2012.
  6. Heim, Michael. 1993. The erotic ontology of cyberspace. In The metaphysics of virtual reality, 83–108. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, Deborah G. 2010. The role of ethics in science and engineering. Trends in Biotechnology 28(12): 589–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lardinois, Frederic. 2010. Google plans to upgrade old billboards in street view. In ReadWriteWeb.Google Scholar
  10. Locke, John, and J.W. Gough. 1956. The second treatise of government (an essay concerning the true original, extent and end of civil government), and a letter concerning toleration. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Mack, Eric. 2009. John Locke. New York: Continuum. http://amzn.com/1441123229.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, John P. 2010. Lower Merion district’s laptop saga ends with $610,000 settlement. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12 Oct 2010. http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-12/news/24981536_1_laptop-students-district-several-million-dollars.
  13. McLuhan, Marshall, and Eric McLuhan. 1988. Laws of media: The new science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Milgram, Paul, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. 1995. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Proceedings of SPIE 2351 (Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies), 282–292. Boston, MA. Oct 31–Nov 1, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. New York v. Belton. 1981. In United States Reports: U.S. Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  16. Sontag, Susan. 1977. Illness as metaphor. In Illness as metaphor and AIDS and its metaphors. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  17. Special issue on computer augmented environments: back to the real world. 1993. (36)7, ACM: New York, NY. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=159544&CFID=217319004&CFTOKEN=61499041.
  18. Stanley v. Georgia. 1969. In U.S.: U.S. Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  19. Szymczyk, Matthew. 2010. Your ad where? Defining virtual property rights in an augmented world. In AdAge Digital. AdAge.com.Google Scholar
  20. Waller, D., Eric Bachmann, Eric Hodgson, and Andrew Beall. 2007. The HIVE: A huge immersive virtual environment for research in spatial cognition. Behavior Research Methods 39(4): 835–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Warren, Samuel, and Louis Brandeis. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright, Benjamin. 2011. Augmented reality property protection. In Wrights Legal Beagle. legal-beagle.typepad.com.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Software EngineeringMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations