Surveillance on Exhibit: Using Problematic Technology To Teach About Problematic Technology

Research Background and Issues

• What problems or challenges did the authors identify?

  • With the widespread adoption of advanced technologies (such as artificial intelligence), it has become increasingly difficult to balance public understanding and the societal impact of these technologies, particularly in areas like data surveillance and facial recognition. These technologies are both ubiquitous and highly opaque, leaving the public feeling "overwhelmed" or "powerless."
  • Although there have been numerous exhibitions on data surveillance, they are often small-scale, short-lived, and targeted at specific audiences, lacking long-term public engagement and comprehensive data research.
  • The ethical issues surrounding data surveillance are complex, especially in regions with colonial histories, such as New Zealand, where these issues intersect with Indigenous data sovereignty.

• Why is this issue important?

  • The application of data surveillance and facial recognition technologies is becoming increasingly global and large-scale, yet the public often lacks a thorough understanding of their behavioral and ethical implications. This issue is critical as it pertains to privacy rights, human rights, and the fairness of data governance.
  • This topic is particularly significant because facial recognition intersects deeply with issues of race, cultural identity, and data sovereignty, which are especially relevant for marginalized groups such as the Māori population in New Zealand.

• Research Motivation and Related Work

  • By designing an interactive museum exhibition aimed directly at the public, the study seeks to showcase the complexities of data surveillance while employing an educational approach of "using problematic technologies to teach about problematic technologies" to provoke public reflection on these issues.
  • The study integrates the cultural context of New Zealand's Māori population to explore how exhibitions can reveal the connections between colonialism and data surveillance technologies.

Solution

• What methods or solutions did the authors propose?

  • The authors developed an augmented reality (AR) interactive museum exhibition that uses a large screen to simulate a smartphone interface. The exhibition allows visitors to experience the practical applications of data collection and facial recognition technologies, thereby exposing the privacy and ethical issues these technologies entail.
  • Design principle: "Using problematic technologies to teach about problematic technologies." The exhibition not only highlights the issues inherent in these technologies but also uses them as an educational medium to provide visitors with a profound experience of their controversies.

• What are the innovative aspects of this solution?

  1. Highlighting the contradictions of problematic technologies: Visitors can choose to "allow" or "disallow" the use of cameras during their experience. However, regardless of their choice, the cameras are already recording data. This design enables visitors to experience the opacity of these technologies.
  2. Incorporating cultural and local context: The exhibition is set against the backdrop of New Zealand's history and Māori culture, resonating with the concepts of data sovereignty and collective responsibility.
  3. Balancing four key tensions in design: comfort vs discomfort; simplicity vs complexity; neutrality vs critique; individual vs collective.

• What are the implementation steps and key technologies used?

  • The exhibition design began with low-fidelity prototypes, which were iteratively refined based on visitor feedback and expert guidance.
  • Interactive experiences were developed using augmented reality technology, including playful facial filters, online surveys, and dynamic information updates.
  • Multiple methods were employed to collect visitor feedback and behavioral data, including interviews, on-site observations, surveys, and screen usage tracking.

Research Outcomes

• What specific outcomes were achieved?

  • Over a two-year period, the exhibition attracted more than 128,000 visitors, collected 16,000 interactive surveys, and conducted interviews and observations, generating a substantial dataset on public understanding and reactions to data surveillance.
  • Visitor feedback on the exhibition included both profound reflections and entertaining interactions, such as taking "meta-selfies" or engaging with playful filters.
  • The exhibition successfully encouraged visitors to shift their focus from individual privacy concerns to collective data rights, fostering critical thinking on an urban scale.

• What advantages does this solution have compared to existing ones?

  • Long-term, large-scale implementation: Unlike previous short-term data surveillance education projects, this exhibition provided a richer foundation for research and education through its long-term operation and interdisciplinary collaboration.
  • Local relevance and inclusivity: The exhibition incorporated the Māori concept of collective data sovereignty, addressing areas that global designs have often overlooked.

• What were the experimental or evaluation results?

  • Approximately half of the visitors participated in the interactive exhibition, with most choosing to allow camera usage, although some opted out midway due to discomfort.
  • Survey results revealed highly polarized public attitudes toward facial recognition technology, reflecting the exhibition's balance between neutrality and critique.
  • Analysis showed that the exhibition effectively cultivated public critical awareness of data surveillance, particularly in the context of group interactions and local cultural settings.

• What are the limitations and future directions?

  • Limitations:
    1. Museum visitors do not fully represent the national demographic, necessitating broader samples for deeper analysis of public opinions.
    2. The exhibition design was constrained by the museum's political neutrality, requiring a moderate approach to critiquing technological issues.
    3. Dynamic updates to interactive content were limited by technical and copyright constraints, preventing the reflection of the latest news and events.
  • Future directions:
    1. Explore the applicability of similar designs in other cultural and regional contexts to further develop localized frameworks for reflection.
    2. Enhance the dynamic nature of exhibition content, incorporating real-time updates and socially driven factors.
    3. Expand this design concept to different types of public environments, offering diverse approaches to technology ethics education.