Hi Steve and Marty,

I drafted that section and Marty copied me on this email, so I figure that I may respond.

First, if you read to the bottom, I believe that I agree with your sentiment in concept, but I do believe that the day in the life of scenario is useful nonetheless.  Please consider the following points.

I think that the day in the life of scenario is a reasonable representation of how smart city technology will evolve over the next decade in the home.  The basic infrastructure has already entered the home.  All that remains is for it to become more extensive, ubiquitous, and integrated, and for people to learn to wield it for their advantage.

Smartphone and smart watch and smart tv/appliance adoption is rampant, not to mention personal assistant adoption like Alexa, Siri, Cortana, etc.  All listen, all watch, all monitor, and this monitoring has been going on for at least a few years now. In addition, software vendors, car companies, insurance companies, employers, and health care companies are already offering incentives for customers and employees to allow them to monitor and use their data and many if not most customers and employees already trade their privacy and self-ownership for convenience and entertainment (to my dismay).  In the modern car, most people have given up all right to privacy at this point in order to use the entertainment, convenience, and safety systems.  People are surprisingly not more vocal and resistant to the end of net neutrality, which also puzzles me.

Having said this, my single biggest concern with all of this technology is that the legal and regulatory frameworks.....and something like a Bill of Digital Rights.....and a cultural assimilation of this technology into social norms are not in place and are nowhere near keeping up with technology, and the larger social system is vulnerable to manipulation, exploitation, and abuse.  I believe that many people will be hurt by systemic abuse and that the system will (unfortunately) only take corrective action in response to a human rights catastrophe.

My belief that this is a significant problem for people and for society collectively is so strong that I do not have any smart appliances or devices, other than my smartphone, and I plan on replacing my smart phone soon with the most basic phone I can find.  I do not use any smart assistant devices.  I have no smart watch.  I have all functions on my pc and smartphone that entail granting access to share, listen, or watch turned off, my car is basic without most smart features, and I plan on making my next car purchase a 1980’s or 1970’s SUV.  It scares me that sufficient human rights protections are not in place for this technology.  I am a technology enthusiast and researcher, but I am a humanist (now maybe an ‘agentist’) first, and hold civil liberties and human rights as more cherished than technology.  So in my own life, I am comfortable forgoing use of the technology until sufficient human, social, ethical, legal, and regulatory norms are in place, even if it means that I miss out on some convenience and entertainment in the process.

I am also concerned about how adoption of these technologies contributes to increasing class stratification and social engineering.

So while I agree with your concern, I believe that most people have already given up the privacies that you reference in the interest of convenience and entertainment, and to their own detriment....and I don’t think that leaving out this day in the life of story and pretending that there is a possible near future where this technology is not ubiquitous in the home is realistic or useful.

And upon further reflection, your point shines a light on what may be an unmet need with respect to this report.  Should this report be used to foster discussion and action to correct the lack of individual protections with respect to personal data?  Should the report state limitations and assumptions and clarify that the addressing the social and legal aspect of this technology is critical?

I do like Marty’s solution of a disclaimer.  He offered one at the conference and I thought it was the right thing to do.  I support his verbiage below.  If I were to add anything, it would be a call to action for readers to contact their representatives and express concern over the lack of laws and regulations to protect ownership of our data and privacy in cyberspace, and a cal to action to discuss these matters in their social organizations and families, and to provide a list of organizations that people may review that support ethical, humane, and socially equitable development of these technologies.

When all is said and done, I don’t mind if the day in the life of scenario stays or goes.  I’m fine with it either way.  I defer to you all.  But just the fact that you have identified society’s likely discomfort with the path that it is choosing each day by signing away its rights to privacy and self-ownership indicates that: (a) we collectively are not ready for this technology yet; (b) we need to have this discussion and advance our laws and social norms to address the realities of the technology.

Please let me know that you have questions or comments.

Best,