frankdevlieger

4.5/5 (2)

The world championship football of 2022 is upcoming, starting next month. This year the event takes place in the oil state Qatar. Critics state that Qatar bought the rights of hosting more than ten years ago mainly for ‘sportswashing’ purposes, referring to the bad situation of human rights in the country. On top of that, it has been revealed that more than 6,500 migrant workers, mostly from South Asia, have died during the construction of stadiums and infrastructure for the event. While downplaying all this controversy, the host country focuses on a smooth and orderly running world cup. Thereby, however, Qatar uses resources, again to be judged as unethical.

Last month, Qatar showed how it will ensure the order and safety of all visitors. In every stadium, 2000 surveillance cameras are being installed, equipped with AI-based facial recognition technology. From a command center, football fans will be monitored to protect them from crimes. Although the technology will certainly contribute to the event’s safety, one could debate whether this is a desirable development. Mass surveillance could prevent terror, assault, or theft, however, a supporter breaking the strict local laws, such as public kissing and other small violations, also could be a target of the authorities. As public safety increases, privacy, freedom, and protection from the state are under pressure.

For these reasons, the European Union is currently developing a regulatory framework for the development and application of AI. The framework wants to impose certain regulations based on the risk classification of the AI. Application for surveillance purposes, as illustrated in the Qatar case, will be classified as high risk, which comes along with strict rules. The union states it wants to build a resilient society for its people and businesses that enables them to enjoy the benefits of AI while feeling safe and protected.

The world cup illustrates with what ease societies can make use of digital technologies in ways to be considered unethical. To prevent the emergence of surveillance states, civilians, interest groups, and politicians all have the important task of ensuring well-functioning regulations.

Sources:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/england-fans-qatar-security-cameras-28078069

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence

No ratings yet.

Earlier this month, a technology columnist of the New York Times wrote a critical article about the industry of smartphones. Especially, he dived into the sustainability of smartphones and its priority in the industry. Spoiler: not very sustainable, not a priority.

The introduction of smartphones was a major disruption of the phone, computer and software market. Since the historical announcement of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs in 2007, smartphone producers release a line of new phones every year, gradually improving performance. Smartphones, however, are not designed to last more than two, three years. Most are hard and expensive to repair, and software and security is only supported for a finite amount of time. The main reason for this is the conflict of interests of durability of smartphones, which is coupled to sustainability, and the business model of producers. Producers want you to buy their new models every year to maximize profits.

Focused on the durability and sustainability issue, multiple startups have been founded that aim to produce modular smartphones. The idea is that broken or outdated parts can easily be replaced instead of buying a new phone, wasting rare and valuable resources. An example is Phoneblocks. This Dutch startup initiated a successful online campaign in 2013 to spread its message, after which it collaborated with Motorola (later Google). Sadly, the project was cancelled in 2016 being “too ambitious and costly to make modular phones a reality”. The project had to overcome multiple technical barriers, and the production of modular parts on a relative small scale without diverse efficient manufacturers was expensive and complex.

Another Dutch startup, however, Fairphone, proved the viability of modular phones. The company also was founded in 2013, but had never been acquired by a multinational technology company. The latest model, the Fairphone 3+, is received well by critics. While price/quality wise it is not the best phone on the market, it differentiates itself on sustainability and durability.

Yet, the modular phone can not disrupt the market without the support of the major technology manufacturers that could improve production efficiency. The current throw-away society, however, seems too profitable for them to provide this support. Due to our capitalistic society and the power of multinationals, it is doubtful whether the modular phone ever makes its way to becoming the standard.

Sources:

Chen, B. X. (2022, September 8). A Smartphone That Lasts a Decade? Yes, It’s Possible. The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/technology/personaltech/smartphone-lasts-decade.html

Statt, N. (2016, September 2). Google confirms the end of its modular Project Ara smartphone. The Verge. Retrieved September 21, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12775922/google-project-ara-modular-phone-suspended-confirm

Thousands of lenses not focused on the game (but on you)

9

Please rate this

Sustainability as Disruptor?

21

Please rate this