IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016 - 8

I would argue the changes we
are undergoing now are definitely different from those of 40 years
ago. In the case of the petrol bowser, it was a required piece of apparatus that had to be controlled by
a human. We were simply replacing one human (the attendant), for
another (the driver) to fill the car
tank. In the case of McDonalds and
supermarkets, we are replacing
people (clerks and cashiers) with
machines (kiosks and electronic
payment systems). We could argue
that this type of work (direct customer service) is not highly skilled,
so why not replace it by a machine?
The thing is that the chasm between
the skilled and unskilled is growing
as a result. Don't offer the McDonald's job to the person who can do
very few other jobs, and they may
well end up in the unemployment
queue, or in a food-maker company
mixing additives. And then there
are the lesser developed nations to
think about in gradations of digital
divides, too detailed to go into here.
Thus, I cannot help but to feel
uncomfortable about this model.
I feel like we are being used like
guinea pigs.1 Nothing new there. It's
definitely a fine experiment to see
how well everyday consumers would
do, to take on employee responsibilities in an unpaid capacity. Much
like commercial crowdsourcing initiatives; it's an open laboratory. If
we "make" them do this, will they
comply? [14]. If we introduce 4 different payment mechanisms, will
they swipe, tap'n'go, use chip and
PIN, or pay cash? Of course it is
1

Recently, I revisited an old T ransformer's
(1984) Hasbro cartoon [13]. The series is titled:
"The Ultimate Doom" and it is in three parts.
The "hypno chip" created by Dr. Arkeville, an
ally of the Decepticons, is used to make the
humans "slaves" of The Machine. The hypno
chip is a small RFID-like tag device, placed
behind the ear, of the human. Among its uses
is mind control. The humans help to harvest
"energon cubes." It is a cartoon worth watching
because Dr. Arkeville calls the whole process
"Operation Guinea Pig."

all presented in the name of convenience - that is until, comparisons
are made between human clerks
and machine clerks [15]. Be under
no illusion, the time at the checkout is being monitored- "clocked,"
just like a race. The only thing is
that the human can never be as
fast as the machine. People are
analogue, machines are digital. But
what are we racing against a stopwatch for? To get out of the store
faster, so we can get back to other
things, like our voice and email
messages and online chat? Has it
to do with efficiency and six sigma
practices? Ok. I get it. But how far
will we stretch this paradigm before
it doesn't make sense to have
humans in any process? And what
will be the consequences of doing
so? As Jaques Ellul so famously
stated: "Technique has taken over
all of man's activities, not just his
productive activity" [16].
I want you to think about a
world ruled by bots (not just some
of the time, but most of the time).
Google has already announced
Gmail's Smart Reply service, a
type of AI-based automatic messenger [17]. Well, it all looks really
swell. In the future, I'm sure I'll be
able to get a bot to order my food
at "Maccas" (McDonalds), a bot to
order and deliver my shopping list
to my house, a bot to reply to my
emails and voicemails and make
decisions for me about grades and
student entry into courses, and for
just about everything else in my
life [18]. In fact, given the predictions, I might well just retire early,
and sit by a pool sipping Margaritas and let the work take care of
itself. But surely, no one would pay
me for doing just that. And what
are the consequences of idleness
[19]? The other day, I was told by
an acquaintance that even "teachers" have now become obsolete. I
cringed. "Well," I thought, "yes, ok,
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

if you argue who needs teachers,
then perhaps we can argue who
needs people, they're just problematic to process flows, right?"
I remember where I was when I first
saw the "Uber" symbol on a building in downtown Canberra, ACT,
Australia. MG Michael's term uberveillance had been out since May
2006, but it was in 2009 that MG
(my husband and research collaborator) spotted an Internet-centric
social media campaign announcing precariously that the "Uber App
is Coming." We discussed what it
might be at the time, and found
out shortly later, that it was a nontraditional taxi company set to displace the current highly regulated
industry. And what happened next?
Lots and lots of taxi drivers flocked
to Uber and went into heavy debt
buying nice cars like the Prius. The
drivers didn't need costly plates,
they could work their own hours,
be their own boss, and pick up who
they pleased. All the cash handling
was also automated so things were
a lot faster and convenient. Heck,
some drivers could even switch
hats if they wanted to, driving for
a taxi plate owner during the day,
and during the night for themselves
as an Uber driver. So we find that
many people are now accustomed
to going the Uber way, despite the
"veillance." There are big bucks to
be made from knowing where people go, and their location histories.
Big business is making even more
money exploiting the marketing
power of data, than from the taxi
service itself.
Recently we learned that in the
U.S.A., a system is now considered
"the driver" of a self-driving car:
"NHTSA [National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration] will interpret
'driver' in the context of Google's
described motor vehicle design as
referring to the (self-driving system),
∕

june 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016