UVM Theses and Dissertations
Format:
Print
Author:
Antczak, Edward
Dept./Program:
Geography
Degree:
MA
Abstract:
This paper examines the functional role of mediated technology (personal trust devices), and cell phones in particular, as a component of building trust while offsetting the effects of anxiety and fear generated by risk. Risk has become a phenomenon that can exist at lnultiple spatial and temporal scales. How individuals cope with the effects of risk is inextricably linked to our ability to trust. Due to the complex nature of the risk-trust relationship, decision making related to determining optimal conditions of whether or not to extend trust has become increasingly difficult. Has technology, through the marketing of mobile phones, GPS, RFID, etc., become a dispassionate mediator of risk that allows for the creation and extension of personal trust space? Does the connective nature of this technology undermine our ability to trust by providing the means to 'keep in touch' under what are perceived to be risky conditions?
My interest in the role of technology in the risk/trust relationship stemmed from my work with geographic information systems (GIs). Though a useful tool for compiling, analyzing, and displaying spatially linked data, it became very clear to me that the potential existed for the misuse of GIs data, transforming it into a tool for surveillance. With the commercialization of GPS (Global Positioning System), including low-cost consumer models, it was now a simple task to track a person's physical movement in space, analyze the data in real time, or store the data for future use. The ability to track a person's physical movement, without their knowledge, raises ethical and privacy issues that need to be addressed. By the end of 2005, federal law mandated that 95% of all cell phones contain GPS chips in order to be E-911 capable. However, it is now possible to track your location remotely, within a few feet, simply by having your cell phone turned on. After reviewing the work of Adams and Millard (2003) regarding cell phones as personal trust devices capable of producing personal trust space, I began to consider how this technology impacts the risk/trust relationship and whether these devices truly have the capacity to create personal trust space.
In this paper, I contend that the use of cell phones as personal trust devices, inhibits the production of personal trust space surrounding interpersonal trust relationships by: 1. Necessitating faceless commitments (Giddens, 1991) to technology 2. Potentially eroding personal confidence and competence in favor of device functionality 3. Supplying unlimited access to knowledge obviating the need for trust without diminishing the underlying exposure to risk.
My interest in the role of technology in the risk/trust relationship stemmed from my work with geographic information systems (GIs). Though a useful tool for compiling, analyzing, and displaying spatially linked data, it became very clear to me that the potential existed for the misuse of GIs data, transforming it into a tool for surveillance. With the commercialization of GPS (Global Positioning System), including low-cost consumer models, it was now a simple task to track a person's physical movement in space, analyze the data in real time, or store the data for future use. The ability to track a person's physical movement, without their knowledge, raises ethical and privacy issues that need to be addressed. By the end of 2005, federal law mandated that 95% of all cell phones contain GPS chips in order to be E-911 capable. However, it is now possible to track your location remotely, within a few feet, simply by having your cell phone turned on. After reviewing the work of Adams and Millard (2003) regarding cell phones as personal trust devices capable of producing personal trust space, I began to consider how this technology impacts the risk/trust relationship and whether these devices truly have the capacity to create personal trust space.
In this paper, I contend that the use of cell phones as personal trust devices, inhibits the production of personal trust space surrounding interpersonal trust relationships by: 1. Necessitating faceless commitments (Giddens, 1991) to technology 2. Potentially eroding personal confidence and competence in favor of device functionality 3. Supplying unlimited access to knowledge obviating the need for trust without diminishing the underlying exposure to risk.