Summary

The Internet of Things and Covenience

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IntR-03-2014-0082#_i8

( Mas Aji Pamungkas/1534010042 )

1. Introduction

In this paper we highlight a number of vital issues that tend to be ignored in the dominant technological discussions related to the vision of Internet of Things (IoT). Although “convenience” as a concept is not excessively highlighted in texts on the IoT, it holds a paradigmatic status. There is an implicit idea that our things can be made to serve us much better. Dohr et al. (2010, p. 804) argue that the IoT is a development of the previous notions of ubiquitous computing, pervasive computing and ambient intelligence. Here, there is a vital development as the earlier familiar “dimensions of the common internet – from anytime, anyplace connectivity for anyone – are supplemented by the dimension anything.”

2. CTA

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) – a proactive approach to evaluating technology before implementation. CTA should be understood as a proactive approach in contrast to conventional Technology Assessment (TA) (Genus, 2006; Rip et al., 1995; Schot, 1992; Schot and Rip, 1996). While TA deals with retrospective assessments of technology, CTA attempts strategic intervention. There are two ways in which the project of engaging with IoT is considerably easier than with most cases of CTA. First, many involved technological researchers are overtly creating social scenarios. Second, mobile internet technology has received a breakthrough in recent years. It is therefore easily understandable to a large public.

3. The Iot and similar concepts

The IoT, probably coined in 1999 (Ashton, 2009) was initially little more than an adoption of ubiquitous computing to the technology of the internet. With time, this notion has been considerably broadened. he IoT, focussed in this paper, has been promoted by European policymakers, for instance in the European framework program on the “Future Internet” (e.g. see Lim et al., 2013). As this concept embraces a number of technological visions that were earlier held apart, it becomes easier for the social scientist to form an understanding of where the current technological trajectories are leading society.

In their promotion of the IoT, the EU policymakers emphasize that “devices and tags can interact with the environment and send the information to other objects through machine to machine communication” (The Council of Europe, 2009, p. 7). In strategic documents (Commision of The European Communities, 2008, 2009) a number of “smart” concepts are suggested:

· seamless connection of devices;

· intelligent cars;

· machine to machine communication;

· smart buildings;

· things-to-person communication;

· thing-to-thing communication; and, etc.

4. Concluding discussion: can we opt out of alpha convenience?

In line with the agenda of CTA, we argue that it is important to discuss the possible consequences of alpha convenience before full implementation. This is particularly pertinent as it, once implemented, does not seem to be a technology that can be avoided by the individual user.

The range of “involuntary non-use” has traditionally varied depending on type, form of use and availability of competing technologies. For instance, it may be possible for us to choose not to have a car if we have access to sufficient public transport to work. In addition, dominating technologies such as TV can be avoided, as it is often not necessary for work. ICT is an entirely different extension of social action, as it has become such a dominant element in most workplaces and also tends to renegotiate boundaries between work and leisure. The vision of alpha convenience seems to be one that leaves scarce opportunity to opt out.

From our perspective, the absence of choice comes from a lack of both early and broad discussions on the appropriate role for technology in society. This paper has aimed to contribute to awareness of the price we pay for alpha convenience. We invite further discussion and research of these issues.