Our topic will be “The Privacy Ring.”  We will be considering the future effects and implications of the concept design for the Me.Ring.

Me.Ring is basically a connected switch that you wear on your finger. When you’re open to your data being collected (from your face, your location, or just about anything else you can imagine), you switch it on. When you want to stay anonymous, you switch it off. The ring is essentially an Incognito Mode for real life, a means to opt out of your actions being recorded and analyzed forever.

Tonight we will be using a futures wheel, a framework for thinking through the potential consequences and effects of a change. We will frame how a change will produce first order consequences, the second order consequences based on those, and the third order consequences based on those.

We open with the observation that the world seems to be moving towards a surveillance state, where facial detection and tracking are becoming more and more the norm. Will law enforcement or legal environments allow this technology to exist? For our discussion tonight, we will focus on if the Me.Ring technology does exist in the future, what implications would we see?

Change: The Me.Ring technology is adopted in the future.

First order consequences: An active relationship with our data, forces us to understand our digital footprint, allows you to be nowhere at once, ability to hide/disappear, illegal to own from a law perspective, Big Five limits services to those with Me.Ring/terms of service excludes Me.Ring, only “haves” have access

Second order consequences will build below off of the first order consequences.

Illegal to own from a law perspective : Goes underground/dark web, tool of dissent/protest/crime, goes subcutaneous/implant

Active relationship with our data: Changes how we think about our digital footprint/relationship with tech companies, power of the “Big Five” firms diminishes

Big Five limits services to those with Me.Ring/terms of service excludes Me.Ring: reveals the “hypocrisy” of the “Big Five”

Ability to hide/disappear: “the right to be forgotten”, ability to receive unfiltered/unbiased information, inadvertent “vanishing” oneself (forget to turn off)

Forces us to understand our digital footprint: More data literacy of the traces we leave, understand how our data is used, demand placed on clear communication of data footprint

Third order consequences will build below off of the second order consequences.

More data literacy of the traces we leave: Data literacy in school curriculum

Tool of dissent/protest/crime: Digitally mediated silent protest (“data boycott”), “data kidnapping”/blackmail, criminals easier to “hide”, “Randomized You” (makes one undetected), society of “invisible people”

Goes subcutaneous/implant: black market surgery, becomes cultural sign

Power of the “Big Five” firms diminishes: “Big Five” business model under threat

Changes how we think about our digital footprint/relationship with tech companies: access/control over our data as a human right, society of “invisible people, like a passport/SS card

Understand how our data is used: Society of “visible people”/traffic in their data/data donators, “data surrogates”/having someone else’s data in place of my own

A few common things began to emerge: The State oversees these discussions and takes action vs. The “Big Five” imposing regulations and fighting this technology vs. The “Data Free Men” – a whole society of people “invisible people” vs. “Data surrogates”

“This was incredibly intellectually stimulating. What a hoot!” -Peter. And I fully agree. Thank you all for joining us this week. We will see you all next month!

Our topic for the evening will be “Trends in Architecture,” a presentation led by Mark Bryan of M+A Architects.  In the wake of the pandemic, M+A Architects took a look at the future of their industry and profession. They looked at what changes they will potentially see in the next 10 years and what that means for space and their practice. We look forward to hearing more!

Mark Bryan joins us from his position incorporating foresight at M+A Architects. They are a certified futurist, working to address the future needs of clients and architecture, particularity within their adaptation to their predictions for the future of architecture and foresight related to COVID-19.

M+A Architects currently offers foresight opportunities, whitepapers, trend forecasting, multi-generational charrettes (brainstorming ideas that are outside of the box that resolve solutions), and a workplace stressors survey. This trending and forecasting prediction allows for them to predict what 2030 looks like the future of architecture and design.

When forecasting, you have to be careful of the Zeitgiest Bias Syndrome. While these predictions do not necessary relate to this, care must be placed in how these insights are come to. Signals and drivers define this approach. Drivers such as climate change can impact symbols such as the younger generation adapting to more climate friendly practices.

One of the layers that is incorporated into these forecasts is the “new neutrals” where colors previously assigned to gender norms such as pink and blue may become the new neutral palette.

We begin with a brief introduction of Andrew Marley, who will be covering some of the concepts which appeared in his Masters work. We look forward to hearing about this applied anthropology!

As a brief definition… Platform = things like TaskRabbit or UpWork, and while not the exact definition, is how it is commonly used.

The work presented here today was conducted as a Masters Thesis at San Jose State University and was supported by the Institute for the Future.

Semi-structures interviews were conducted with 18 total stakeholders, ranging through employees at a Platform, clients, workers, and a college career counselor. Additionally, Andrew worked at Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, conducting “approved human intelligence tasks”, which are designed to be done in a couple minutes and which are often designed to generate data for machine learning approaches. In total, over about 20-30 hours of work, he earned $25.14.

Selected findings: tethered reputation, disparate impact of system flaws, and restricted expression.

In the gig economy, your reputation is tied to a particular Platform, unlike the ability to hand a resume with skills and experiences over. When someone searches for a particular skill, you essentially are measured on jobs completed and success on that Platform. A particular worker was quoted on how shifting Platforms or changing demands produces the need for experienced individuals to undercut others. As another example, Andrew did not have access to more complex jobs on Mechanical Turk as he did not complete a certain number of jobs.

If issues do arise, they often fall on the worker. Clients, however, do not have to do much. Workers need to go through background checks, where clients often do not. This creates a system of fear where the workers and clients are not held to equal safety standards. If there is a glitch or someone does not leave a rating, it may appear as you never even worked a particular job. Compounding on this is restricted expression, where your potential selection on a Platform may be tied to your metrics, not your resume, cover letter, or competency test.

Forecasts: Continued exploration and some standardization of profession reputation, training the next generation, a convergence of old and new professional reputations, and workers and agency.

Multi level marketing has an interesting parallel to this, where clients have a lot of power to assign workers below them. A common theme is the lack of worker protection, but efforts continue to be made for worker organization and support, but this can be hit and miss on Platforms and between or towards specific clients. People appear to be focused and talking on those defenses for workers.

The gig economy certainly spans the range from Dickensian to full protection. To what extent, then, does the gig economy span the entire economy? Will we all fall into this model eventually? The plurality of work makes this a difficult question to answer. It becomes very important for locations of institutional memory, as the example of a NASA employee highlighted, to maintain that structure. Gig jobs won’t work with a rotating worker pool. How could a gig economy build that memory?

Peter provides an excellent description of the way his architectural firm as adapted to the new digital environment and in some part, approaches a gig-like system. His employees build worth and experience by structuring based on projects, flexible to the client needs which Peter manages. Joe brings forth the Amazon union debate and how worker protections are involved in the growing gig economy development and highlights the exemptions from California’s new AB 5 employment law.

Are we humans then left to decipher paper receipts or crop images or determine whether a photo contains nudity? The thing here is context. Humans are exceptional in context determination and are able to translate over language in accent and cross-cultural differences. Is the future of jobs then going to move us to freelancers who simply interpret what computers cannot? Is it to be so Dickensian? The question really is where laws defend workers. Is there to be a top-down push back that becomes a national focus or is the current status quo to be maintained?

Globalization is not directly leading to homogenization. It is leading towards micro-cultures. Individuals can find their sense of community outside of their immediate vicinity. While this brings us together, it also fractures us. As is with globalization, it also is with the workplace.

Has COVID accelerated this atomization of the workplace and cultures? Andrew argues yes, but in a lot of cases, there would be a come back to an in-person, connected, close workplace environment.

Are we actually learning how to adapt to climate change and the COVID pandemic and how does this relate to the gig economy? Is the gig economy even a choice for workers? What about the casualization of labor? Do these protections need to come from the government?

To read more about these thoughts, attached is Andrew’s Masters Thesis.

Contact information: Andrew Marley, AndrewBMarley@gmail.com