Emotional AI, soft biometrics and the surveillance of emotional life: An unusual consensus on privacy
Emotional AI, soft biometrics and the surveillance of emotional life: An unusual consensus on privacy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2053951720904386
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
8.5
通讯作者：
McStay, Andrew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McStay, Andrew
到 2020 年代初，情感人工智能（情感 AI）将越来越多地出现在日常物品和实践中，例如助手、汽车、游戏、手机、可穿戴设备、玩具、营销、保险、警务、教育和边境管制。人们对使用这些技术来调节和优化空间的情感体验也很感兴趣，例如工作场所、医院、监狱、教室、旅游基础设施、餐馆、零售和连锁店。开发人员经常声称他们的应用程序无法识别人员身份。从表面上看，本文提出这样的问题：不识别个人身份的情感人工智能实践会对隐私产生哪些影响？为了调查软性非识别情感人工智能的隐私观点，本文借鉴了以下内容：对情感检测行业、法律界、政策制定者、监管机构和对隐私感兴趣的非政府组织进行了 100 多次采访；与利益相关者一起举办研讨会，设计使用情绪数据的道德准则；英国针对 2068 名公民对情绪捕捉技术的感受进行了一项调查。研究发现，由于不同的利益和动机，社会利益相关者对隐私的需求缺乏共识。鉴于这种薄弱的共识，它得出的结论是，在社会上就隐私和情绪数据的使用达成一致的实践原则的机会有限。
By the early 2020s, emotional artificial intelligence (emotional AI) will become increasingly present in everyday objects and practices such as assistants, cars, games, mobile phones, wearables, toys, marketing, insurance, policing, education and border controls. There is also keen interest in using these technologies to regulate and optimize the emotional experiences of spaces, such as workplaces, hospitals, prisons, classrooms, travel infrastructures, restaurants, retail and chain stores. Developers frequently claim that their applications do not identify people. Taking the claim at face value, this paper asks, what are the privacy implications of emotional AI practices that do not identify individuals? To investigate privacy perspectives on soft non-identifying emotional AI, the paper draws upon the following: over 100 interviews with the emotion detection industry, legal community, policy-makers, regulators and NGOs interested in privacy; a workshop with stakeholders to design ethical codes for using data about emotions; a UK survey of 2068 citizens on feelings about emotion capture technologies. It finds a weak consensus among social stakeholders on the need for privacy, this driven by different interests and motivations. Given this weak consensus, it concludes that there exists a limited window of opportunity to societally agree principles of practice regarding privacy and the use of data about emotions.