This month within the ACM Journal on Accountable Computing, MIT graduate scholar Jonathan Zong SM ’20 and co-author J. Nathan Matias SM ’13, PhD ’17 of the Cornell Residents and Expertise Lab study how the notion of refusal can open new avenues within the area of information ethics. Of their open-access report, “Knowledge Refusal From Under: A Framework for Understanding, Evaluating, and Envisioning Refusal as Design,” the pair proposes a framework in 4 dimensions to map how people can say “no” to expertise misuses. On the similar time, the researchers argue that similar to design, refusal is generative, and has the potential to create alternate futures.
Zong, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering and pc science, 2022-23 MIT Morningside Academy for Design Design Fellow, and member of the MIT Visualization Group, describes his newest work on this Q&A.
Q: How do you outline the idea of “refusal,” and the place does it come from?
A: Refusal was developed in feminist and Indigenous research. It’s this concept of claiming “no,” with out being given permission to say “no.” Students like Ruha Benjamin write about refusal within the context of surveillance, race, and bioethics, and discuss it as a essential counterpart to consent. Others, just like the authors of the “Feminist Knowledge Manifest-No,” consider refusal as one thing that may assist us decide to constructing higher futures.
Benjamin illustrates instances the place the selection to refuse is just not equally doable for everybody, citing examples involving genetic knowledge and refugee screenings within the U.Ok. The imbalance of energy in these conditions underscores the broader idea of refusal, extending past rejecting particular choices to difficult the whole set of selections offered.
Q: What impressed you to work on the notion of refusal as an act of design?
A: In my work on knowledge ethics, I’ve been enthusiastic about learn how to incorporate processes into analysis knowledge assortment, notably round consent and opt-out, with a concentrate on particular person autonomy and the concept of giving individuals selections about the way in which that their knowledge is used. However in relation to knowledge privateness, merely making selections accessible is just not sufficient. Selections could be unequally accessible, or create no-win conditions the place all choices are unhealthy. This led me to the idea of refusal: questioning the authority of information collectors and difficult their legitimacy.
The important thing thought of my work is that refusal is an act of design. I consider refusal as deliberate actions to revamp our socio-technical panorama by exerting some type of affect. Like design, refusal is generative. Like design, it is oriented in the direction of creating alternate prospects and alternate futures. Design is a means of exploring or traversing an area of chance. Making use of a design framework to instances of refusal drawn from scholarly and journalistic sources allowed me to determine a standard language for speaking about refusal and to think about refusals that haven’t been explored but.
Q: What are the stakes round knowledge privateness and knowledge assortment?
A: The usage of knowledge for facial recognition surveillance within the U.S. is a giant instance we use within the paper. When individuals do on a regular basis issues like publish on social media or stroll previous cameras in public areas, they may be contributing their knowledge to coaching facial recognition programs. As an illustration, a tech firm might take photographs from a social media web site and construct facial recognition that they then promote to the federal government. Within the U.S., these programs are disproportionately utilized by police to surveil communities of colour. It’s troublesome to use ideas like consent and choose out of those processes, as a result of they occur over time and contain a number of sorts of establishments. It’s additionally not clear that particular person opt-out would do something to vary the general state of affairs. Refusal then turns into a vital avenue, at each particular person and neighborhood ranges, to assume extra broadly of how affected individuals nonetheless exert some sort of voice or company, with out essentially having an official channel to take action.
Q: Why do you assume these points are extra notably affecting disempowered communities?
A: People who find themselves affected by applied sciences are usually not at all times included within the design course of for these applied sciences. Refusal then turns into a significant expression of values and priorities for individuals who weren’t a part of the early design conversations. Actions taken in opposition to applied sciences like face surveillance — be it authorized battles in opposition to corporations, advocacy for stricter rules, and even direct motion like disabling safety cameras — might not match the traditional notion of collaborating in a design course of. And but, these are the actions accessible to refusers who could also be excluded from different types of participation.
I’m notably impressed by the motion round Indigenous knowledge sovereignty. Organizations just like the First Nations Info Governance Centre work in the direction of prioritizing Indigenous communities’ views in knowledge assortment, and refuse insufficient illustration in official well being knowledge from the Canadian authorities. I feel this can be a motion that exemplifies the potential of refusal, not solely as a solution to reject what’s being supplied, but additionally as a method to suggest a constructive different, very very similar to design. Refusal is just not merely a negation, however a pathway to totally different futures.
Q: Are you able to elaborate on the design framework you plan?
A: Refusals differ extensively throughout contexts and scales. Growing a framework for refusal is about serving to individuals see actions which are seemingly very totally different as cases of the identical broader thought. Our framework consists of 4 aspects: autonomy, time, energy, and price.
Take into account the case of IBM making a facial recognition dataset utilizing individuals’s photographs with out consent. We noticed a number of types of refusal emerge in response. IBM allowed people to choose out by withdrawing their photographs. Folks collectively refused by making a class-action lawsuit in opposition to IBM. Across the similar time, many U.S. cities began passing native laws banning the federal government use of facial recognition. Evaluating these instances by the framework highlights commonalities and variations. The framework highlights various approaches to autonomy, like particular person opt-out and collective motion. Relating to time, opt-outs and lawsuits react to previous hurt, whereas laws may proactively stop future hurt. Energy dynamics differ; withdrawing particular person photographs minimally influences IBM, whereas laws might doubtlessly trigger longer-term change. And as for value, particular person opt-out appears much less demanding, whereas different approaches require extra effort and time, balanced in opposition to potential advantages.
The framework facilitates case description and comparability throughout these dimensions. I feel its generative nature encourages exploration of novel types of refusal as nicely. By figuring out the traits we need to see in future refusal methods — collective, proactive, highly effective, low-cost… — we will aspire to form future approaches and alter the habits of information collectors. We might not at all times have the ability to mix all these standards, however the framework gives a method to articulate our aspirational objectives on this context.
Q: What affect do you hope this analysis can have?
A: I hope to increase the notion of who can take part in design, and whose actions are seen as authentic expressions of design enter. I feel a whole lot of work to this point within the dialog round knowledge ethics prioritizes the attitude of pc scientists who’re making an attempt to design higher programs, on the expense of the attitude of individuals for whom the programs are usually not at present working. So, I hope designers and pc scientists can embrace the idea of refusal as a authentic type of design, and a supply of inspiration. There is a important dialog occurring, one that ought to affect the design of future programs, even when expressed by unconventional means.
One of many issues I need to underscore within the paper is that design extends past software program. Taking a socio-technical perspective, the act of designing encompasses software program, establishments, relationships, and governance buildings surrounding knowledge use. I would like individuals who aren’t software program engineers, like policymakers or activists, to view themselves as integral to the expertise design course of.
