You are here
A Response to the Dobson and Fisher Article
Introduction
Slavery and Geoslavery
Benefits ... BUT
Fear Factor
Concluding Thoughts
References
Post or View Comments
Introduction
Prior to the Horizon Wimba session presented by Professor Jerry Dobson on November 10, 2005, our class had read the articles provided by him and viewed his TV interview snippet on QuickTime video. Indeed, the Dobson and Fisher (2003) article in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine had already stimulated quite a bit of discussion in our class, challenged our thinking and raised additional questions and points of discussion (hence the choice of this issue as our term project). In this initial section of the web site we provide an informal “reaction paper” of sorts to Dobson and Fisher (2003). There are many points that we would like to discuss further, indeed to challenge in the spirit of open-mindedness, and to provide additional perspective on.
Slavery and Geoslavery
It is important to start with definitions and, as geoslavery is a term that is new to many GIS practitioners and students, we appreciate that Dobson and Fisher (2003) provides this initial definition: “the practice in which one entity, the master, coercively or surreptitiously monitors and exerts control over the physical location of another individual, the slave.” And states further that “throughout history, the vast majority of slaves were owned, not by governments, but by individuals.” We note further that governments have themselves provided tolerance for slavery by allowing it to exist legally, the wealth from which has found its way into government treasuries. It would be interesting to have further discussion on this point in a future seminar. In Professor Dobson’s Horizon Wimba presentation he differentiated between analog and digital slavery, the primary difference, as we understood it, to be that digital is facilitated by the use of GIS and GPS technology, whereas analog is aided by other means. Along with the examples of digital geoslavery given in Dobson and Fisher (2003), we further understood this differentiation to mean that GIS and GPS technology enable slavery to occur (in a causative sense). This is a very interesting and important point. However, the facts that “analog” slavery exists and that child slavery, sex slavery, and other abusive behaviors are currently rampant without the use of GIS and GPS technology (e.g., www.iabolish.com/slavery_today.htm) begs one to question the suggestion that these technologies are anything but a different and potential tool to enslave, instead of the enabling factor. Again, this is a very interesting and important point raised by Professor Dobson, which we feel, once again, merits further discussion, perhaps in a future seminar.
Benefits ARE Pointed Out, But …
Dobson and Fisher (2003) give the examples of mountaineering safety and Alzheimer’s patients as being among the myriad benefits of location-based services (LBS; e.g., Kim, 2002 and references therein). There are many other benefits that we thought of as well, a good train of thought indeed. LBS have certainly evolved from the GPS technological revolution, which in turn has evolved from the increased research around satellite technology and increased launching of satellites. Originally used as modern tools for war and spying, satellites have become an essential part of our lives. Benefits from satellite technology touch every nation and every scientist. Scientists forecast weather, transmit the news to millions of people, evaluate the health and livelihood of forests and wetlands, study land use and abuse, study tsunami and hurricane damage, air and water pollution, the melting of the ice sheets, the doming of volcanoes, mapping geology, ecology, desertification, geomorphology and natural resources. “Tracking” with this technology has included oil spills, endangered species and their daily movements, movements of the earth’s crustal plates and identification of active faults for assessing seismic hazard, as well as the tracking of commercial shipping, research, and military vessels at sea, air traffic control, down to the tracking of those on parole who may have broken probation or house arrest.
On the other side of the coin is the assertion in Dobson and Fisher (2003) that “countless benefits of LBS are countered by social hazards unparalleled in human history.” As an additional question that may refine this even further: Are LBS (really) a bigger social hazard than food shortages and famines, disease, war, terror, poverty, drugs, pollution and racism? Will LBS social hazards surpass those wrought by the World Wars, communism and the Cold War, the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia?
Fear Factor
An issue has arisen in the seminar as to whether or not the Dobson and Fisher (2003) article is “alarmist.” The term “alarmist” does imply that a message is false or exaggerated. A similar situation may perhaps be found in how US citizens have reacted to national terror warnings relayed through the media as different color codes for different levels of threat. It is the opinion of many that the “alarmist” nature of this warning system has resulted in many Americans actually disregarding the warnings entirely. The color codes have even became fodder for many late night talk show jokes. But are the levels of terrorist threat really false? Are they really exaggerated? Public perception is a strong tool, often abused by policy makers as well as policy breakers. Of course it is undesirable to tip the scales too far and give the public the wrong impression that GIS technology is “bad” technology, enabling ill-intended human rights violations. Virtual seminar students have already benefited from the discussions led by Rich Harris in this regard (“Hostilities toward GIS,” and issues raised in works such as Pickles, 1991 and 1995; Shepard, 1993; and Schuurman, 2000). Professor Dobson and others on the Angel discussion boards have already pointed out that human tracking is not always a negative thing. Further, how do we as ethical GIS professionals foster trust in the technology, within and certainly outside of, the GIS community?
It is interesting to briefly examine a bit of history with regard to sober public warnings or "fear messages." The history of fear messages dates back to 1953 when Yale experimental psychologist Carl Hovland, one of the founding fathers of experimental research on the effects of communication, formulated the drive reduction model, in which the communicator has the explicit intention of changing the behavior of those he is communicating to (particularly in advertising) (Sherry, 2004). Since that time, the use of fear to change behavior has received mixed support in the literature. More recent studies have clarified how best to successfully deliver a fear message in order to change behavior (Witte et al., 1998; Ruiter et al. 2001).
The construction of an effective fear message contains two main parts: the element that ilicits some type of fear arousal in the subject, and, most importantly, a way to address that fear. Not all images, thoughts, or experiences evoke fear equally in all people, so the target audience must be understood in order to attain the best results. The fear must be perceived as feasible by the individual presented with the fear message. Without an effective way to overcome this fear, those exposed to the fear message may take extra risks because they believe that there is no way to prevent this thing from happening. It cannot be stressed enough that for a fear message to work, a clear and effective recommended response must be included as part of the message.
The current or future malicious use of LBS to control people is a cause for concern. The sinister potentialities if this technology is left unchecked are great. However, there are many non-governmental organizations, governments, private industries, and individuals who will lend their voice to reason and move toward ensuring that the development of LBS is safe and ethical (e.g., Section 4 of our site). The threat of misuse is real, but we believe that it can be effectively prevented.
Concluding Thoughts
Interestingly enough, Professor Dobson, by his own admission in an Angel discussion board response, referred to “geoslavery” is an “inflammatory term.” But he also challenges us to propose a term that "evokes the potential threat involved while not simultaneously serving as an advertising point for those who wish to promote it." Fair enough, and we have not yet come up with such a term. However, in reading Dobson and Fisher (2003), we WERE challenged to take things a step further by thinking among ourselves about how to take action in order to prevent misuses (hence Sections 3 and 4 of our site on additional facts and solutions). Surely this is a positive result of Dobson and Fisher (2003) for us, and if it continues to be an open avenue for discussion within the Virtual Seminar, we wish to emphasize that we are not discounting the message or its importance. We wish the message to be successful and for people to indeed heed the warnings.
As citizens we have the ability to influence government, as well as private industry. We must talk about the potential abuses in a manner that fosters thoughtful debate. It is everyone’s responsibility to make sure that their money, time, and work are expended ethically. We as members of the GIS community can shape how this technology is developed, marketed, and used. We as geographers, scientists, researchers, advocates, concerned citizens, victims, etc. can write letters to companies, government agencies, and advocacy groups, making sure that they are aware of the potential abuses of these products, and to propose solutions. The dialogue among these parties, as has happened in the past with other technologies, will influence how LBS and related technologies are shaped and developed. All of this implies a clear acknowledgement that the widespread benefits of GIS, GPS, LBS, and related technologies do not negate the risks, and that the management of these risks should in fact be fodder for future legislation, as well as future applied and basic research. Indeed, the ground-breaking doctoral dissertations and master’s theses of the next decade may devise new and specific safeguards against illicit tracking and geoslavery, not unlike how network security has emerged as a major research area within computer science.
References
Dobson, J.E. and Fisher, P.F., 2003. Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring, pp. 47-52.
Kim, T.J., 2002. Location-Based Services - GIS for Personal Productivity. UCGIS Short-Term Research Priority White Paper, UCGIS, http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/research/2002researchPDF/shortterm/b_loc....
Pickles, J., 1991. Geography, GIS, and the surveillant society. Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences.
Pickles, J., 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems, New York, Guilford Press.
Ruitter, R.A., Abraham, C., and Kok, G., 2001. Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals, Psychology & Health, 16, 613-630.
Schuurman, N., 2000. Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s, Progress in Human Geography, 24, pp. 569-590.
Sheppard, E., 1993. Automated geography: What kind of geography for what kind of society? The Professional Geographer, 45(4): 457-460.
Sherry, J.L., 2004. Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research, Media Psychology, 6, 83-109.
Witte, K., Berkowitz, J. M., Cameron, K. A., and McKeon, J. K., 1998. Preventing the spread of genital warts: Using fear appeals to promote self-protective behaviors. Health Education and Behavior, 25(5), 571-585.