Advocacy's Technology Collaboration Misfire

     It has been a tough couple of months for the tech sector. These rough headlines shifted focus away from innovation and highlighted some structural issues in the industry. These issues are real, and must be resolved. While much of the industry grapples with these issues, it continues to disrupt long-standing industries from brick-and-mortar retail to transportation.
     Last week I attended two tech events that could not be more different. The Boston Innovators Group hosted a showcase Tuesday night of voice-driven technology from local startups. The next night Canopy City organized a panel of civil liberties advocates, government officials and startups to speak about Algorithmic Discrimination. The dichotomy in tone and attitude towards the tech sector (i.e. the technology and its actors) was astounding.
     Speakers at the Boston Innovators Group oozed in enthusiasm about the next generation of products powered by voice computing. From facilitating early childhood learning through a voice-powered teddy bear to the use of Amazon Echo at Intercontinental Hotels to optimize front desk utility, there was pure excitement in the room as attendees were amazed at how this technology could simplify their daily routines.
     On the other hand, most of the Algorithmic Discrimination speakers took a combative, anti-technology approach to deal with the faults of the industry. The advocacy groups proudly brandished their list of lawsuits waged against public and private sector organizations that have implemented big data in their decision making process. To put it mildly, attendees at this event were highly skeptical of the intentions of tech companies, and each anecdote about the evils of big data – from Idaho’s Medicare use of financial models to determine reimbursements to Chicago’s risk assessment profiles in policing – was met with nods of approval.
     To leap from these situations where people were wronged to call for full transparency of big data (i.e. using only open source data) is misguided. While it is easy to attack the tech companies who provide these solutions, we must look at those involved in the decision making process to implement these systems. These situations are rarely simple. Who were the decision makers that worked with the tech companies to find these solutions? How much research was conducted to find the best solution? Was staff using these solutions properly trained? What issues did they face prior to implementing these solutions?
     With all its faults, the tech sector will change the way we live. As technology evolves, new ethical dilemmas will arise. I had hoped to hear advocacy groups putting forward ways to collaborate with the tech sector, not threaten to file a lawsuit at each turn. As Intercontinental Hotels discussed the warnings their lawyers provided about which Amazon Echo products the company cannot use in hotel rooms, it is a positive sign that companies look to do the right thing.
     Is it the responsibility of the tech sector to foresee every single civil liberty new products assault? I posit that advocacy groups should work with technology companies to help create socially responsible innovation. At a time when extreme polarization has seized the national conscious on many issues, does technology need to be torn asunder by the same fate?