University of Witswatersrand, February 2017
Itâs February 2017 and Iâm back in Johannesburg. While the distant rhythms of customer-centricity in financial services linger, Iâm here with a renewed sense of purpose: to explore the role of emerging technologies in the future of legal identity (I have always been a fan of extra-curricular). Hosted by the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research, my peppy enthusiasm and overt keenness were sufficient to facilitate my invitation to join a 2-day conference held by an interdisciplinary group who first convened around the subject matter back in 2012 at the Hague.
The problem statement is thus: legal registration is a right and essential to ensuring sufficient recognition by the state, however, legal registration is not a universal reality (pick up a copy of Szreter & Breckenbridge, Registration and Recognition if you need convincing further â however, at ÂŁ100 a copy, you can also just take it from me). A wealth of historical literature sits behind this statement and the Sustainable Development Goals target 16.9 further enshrines the contemporary momentum, pursuing the following: âby 2030 provide legal identity for all including free birth registrations‘.
Since first being exposed to the topic as part of my undergraduate studies I have remained alert to progress in this space, keeping a keen eye on local and global initiatives such as âGOV.UK Verifyâ (formerly the identity assurance programme), Estoniaâs âE-Residencyâ initiative and notably Indiaâs introduction of the Aadhaar. At the turn of the year, fresh on my return from a stint in Silicon Valley Iâm giddy with solutionism. Surely the technology exists. Surely the technology exists itâs just a case of applying it to this problem. Safe to say that pixie dust got me well and truly.
Here is when itâs valuable to draw on the work of scholars such as Evegeny Morozov who in his âTo Solve Everything Click Hereâ explores âtechnology, solutionism and the urge to fix problems that donât existâ. Thatâs not to say the problem of inadequate registration and recognition does not exist (it does), but rather that through our converging tendencies towards both solutionism and internet-centricity we have come to assume that âthere must be an app for thatâ. The conference captured this tone with both elegance and integrity.
Take for example the work of Marielle Debos who presented on âWhat election technologies do when they do not prevent rigging: Insights from Chadâ, detailing her work on the 2016 presidential election. In this case the introduction of âbiometric technologiesâ as part of the presidential campaign proved neither an efficient or cost-effective way of ensuring a free and fair election, playing no role in the identification of voters at the polling station. However, where it was effective was in providing a tool for leaders who needed to restore the democratic façade of their regime. Her studies show that no âtechnologyâ could have intervened in this political context (further emphasised by the phenomenal 235 day texting and social media blackout during and after the election intended to slow down possible action from the opposition and to prevent the results from leaking). Morozov and Debos combined provided the âbucket of cold water to the faceâ that I so desperately needed.
So, important takeaway number 1, âthere are some problems technology wonât fixâ.
[Itâs now AprilâŠI need to get better at this]
Good. Ok. Key takeaway number 2, âtechnology is never neutralâ. I thought this was a closed debate. Turns out, thereâs always one.
Despite my objections (another story entirely) biometrics clocked disproportionate airtime in conference debate. What was interesting, however, was the debate around the impartiality of biometrics as a technology. Do biometrics offer a beacon of impartial scientific rationality, or are they are product of their cultural context, codifying existing forms of discrimination and implicated in âinterlocking systems of oppressionâ? Needless to say Iâm going to side with the latter. See S. A. Magnetâs When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race and the Technology of Identity (2011) for some additional Sunday reading (very insightful if not slightly too dependent on The Minority Report for source material…).
A recently printed interview between Melinda Gates and The Atlanticâs Gillian White supports the need for further enquiry into the presupposed neutrality of emerging technologies across the board. Thereâs no beating around the bush. Gates makes the urgency clear âThe Tech Industry Needs to Fix itâs Gender Problem â Nowâ.
White: Whatâs at risk if more women donât get incorporated into computer science and tech?
Gates: I think weâll have so much hidden bias coded into the system that we wonât even realize all the places that we have it. If you donât have a diverse work force programming artificial intelligence and thinking about the data sets to feed in, and how to look at a particular program, youâre going to have so much bias in the system youâre going to have a hard time rolling it back later or taking it out.
[Oh ffs. Not again.]
This makes clear why the importance of getting women and girls coding should be elevated far beyond addressing any employment quota. While championing initiatives such as âGirls Who Codeâ is undoubtedly central to this effort, so too is simply raising awareness that technologies (including scientific or digital technologies) are never neutral.
Following one of many visits to Silicon Valleyâs Computer History Museum I found myself reflecting on the expertly curated assemblage of talking heads offering advice to the young people of today which closed out the main exhibit. One of these videos features Hypertext pioneer, Ted Nelson who imparted the following wisdom, particularly potent in the context of Gatesâ warningâŠ
âFirst, learn to program. Then, learn to program. Then, learn to program. As many languages as you can and become conversant with as many levels of software as you can, because only then you can play with the big boys*.â
Ted Nelson, Hypertext Pioneer
[*Case in point.]
Another of the talking heads was Rich Hillman, Chief Creative Officer, Electronic Arts. Without wishing to diminish Nelsonâs words I found Hillmanâs wisdom to resonate on a much more personal level.
âAny of the technology that you learn in 5 years or less will be transient, will be gone. Your mastery of that particular idiosyncratic piece of technology will not have anything to do with your long-term future. A great liberal arts education with lots of understandings of human beings is much more valuable, they donât change as much and theyâre both your customers and the instruments of your creationâ.
Rich Hillman, Chief Creative Officer
As observed in Joâburg, Dubos in her work on Chad perfectly exemplifies the criticality in seeking âunderstandings of human beingsâ and their broader cultural and political context. Beyond this, however, we must not neglect the study of emerging technologies, transient or otherwise, and how they are both products of and inform these societies in which they operate. Combining, these issues dovetail to frame both the urgency for advocacy and reform in the engineering community and the need to maintain thorough and diverse academic debate that prioritises nuanced contextual understanding over narratives of technological determinism.
The Ecumene Read 