IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2019 - 15

of a smart city program. Having to
provide such a route would obviously create logistical issues and may
deter a community from moving forward with a project that could lead
to better use of resources by using
data for both a planning and project prioritization perspective. Also,
the important conversation around
the collection of "mobility data" is
rightfully gaining momentum following the unpredicted arrival of
dockless scooters and the continued implementation of the Mobility
Data Specification by many cities in
the United States.
New innovations continue to
make their way into every aspect
of our being (and commute). These
include personal digital assistants
like "Alexa" and "Siri," to apps that
bring services literally to our fingertips, to the ongoing deployment of
self-driving vehicles and unmanned
aerial systems. With the benefits,
most tangibly in the form of convenience, that come from new technologies, also come risks that are often
little understood, or more accurately, are ignored. Today, when using
technology, it appears ignorance is
indeed bliss. This begs the question
from both a legal and policy standpoint around whether or not a duty
exists to inform often unsuspecting
citizens about what data is being collected, how that data is being used,
and perhaps most importantly,
whether or not data is being sold to
a third party in exchange for use of
a certain app or technology device.
A place to start the conversation around the potential need for
evolution concerning consent is
the infamous "Terms of Use" that
have become a passively accepted
part of nearly every online or "ondemand" transaction. Not only is
length a deterrent to reading such
terms, but knowing that you have
little (or more realistically no) negotiating power provides little incenSEPTEMBER 2019

tive to better understand what a
United States Congress), not clearuser is agreeing to. Instead users
ly disclosing risks can lead to a loss
of users, a sentiment of mistrust
quickly click "accept" for access to
towards technology companies, and
apps like Facebook or Twitter that
a growing call for regulation.
allow communication with millions
While legal mechanisms like
of people rather effortlessly, or Lyft,
mandatory arbitration have been
Uber, Lime, or Waymo that provide
approved by use in certain instances
on-demand mobility.
as high as the United States Supreme
Normally, when entering into an
Court, the road forward is unceragreement that involves rights being
tain when thinking about merging
waived (especially significant rights
new tech nolo g ie s l i ke autonolike the right to trial or agreeing to
mous vehicles with such conditions
limit damages that can be collected
in Terms of Use. The issue of forced
in the event of harm from use of a
arbitration clauses was one of the
product or app), one would argue
speed bumps that could not be overthat "informed consent" is needed in order for a binding
agreement to be created.
But, in this day in age, when
few actually read the Terms
of Use (and, even fewer when
Do we need to upgrade from
such Terms of Use are updated), there does not appear
"Informed Consent" to
to be a meeting of the minds
"Informed Risk"?
when it comes to consumers truly understanding the
conditions that come with
come for the "AV START" Act, which
the convenience of a technology
stalled in Congress last year. As we
like on-demand mobility or dockknow all too well, the law is workless micromobilty.
ing to catch up with the fast pace
The danger that consumers are
of innovation being incorporated
not clearly consenting to condiinto our communities. This is likely
tions they have read and underto continue to be an area of debate
stand is a potential impediment to
that requires careful consideration
the continued adoption of new and
and updating with the continued
larger innovations like self-drivdeployment of autonomous vehicles
ing vehicles and unmanned aerial
and drones, and the inevitable accisystems. These innovations are
dents that are to come.
anticipated to collect large amounts
For autonomous and semi-autonof personal data from a "driver/
omous vehicles, the issue of transoperator/rider" (we are still workparency and informed consent
ing on those definitions) or drones
is playing out through the recent
navigating the air or ground with
fatality involving an Uber autonocameras attached. (See new FedEx
mous vehicle and a growing numcommercia l here: ht tps://w w w
ber of deaths to date from cars with
.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242834/
Tesla "autopilot" engaged. These
delivery-robot-fedex-sameday-botincidents call into question the
autonomous-trials.) As we are seeobligation of companies to accuing with the ongoing discussion
rately disclose to consumers the
around Facebook and its use of
true capabilities of a vehicle being
data for profit (disturbingly, to the
touted as "autonomous." D oe s
surprise of many members of the
∕

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

15
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242834/delivery-robot-fedex-sameday-bot-autonomous-trials https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242834/delivery-robot-fedex-sameday-bot-autonomous-trials https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242834/delivery-robot-fedex-sameday-bot-autonomous-trials
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2019
