Reflections on the Myth of Icarus in the Age of Information [1]THE REVOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE MADE is indeed wonderful, powerful, and great...But you must...fit this revolution to the needs and limitations of...[humanity], with...our delicacy, dignity, and mortality always in mind. Forbes ASAP, December 2, 1996, 14, at 22. SYNOPSIS We are currently involved in a debate over the manner and timing of the deployment of computer augmented network delivery systems and services in American society. The debate is couched in terms of market competition [theory, theology, reality] on the one hand, and social equity [subsidy, entitlement & communitarianism] on the other. The debate assumes that the recipients of the twenty-first century's political, economic and educational benefits must be proficient in the use of the technology. It also assumes that in their current and evolving form, the technologies we deploy are inherently necessary and beneficial to all. As will be evident, this later assumption is not necessarily true. Human experience is replete with instances of the adverse unintended consequences of a technology's deployment. Unfortunately, communications technologies are not exempt. Print technology, the dominant tool for the storage, transmission and receipt of information for centuries, has served as an unintended bar to individuals who cannot readily process and translate the sequence of letters and symbols on a page. For more than a century, in Western societies, such individuals have been deemed deficient, less than mentally competent, aberrant, because they do not interface well with the technology[2]. Proficiency in the tool's use [reading, writing and arithmetic] rests at the center of social competence and success. It has come to define in significant part what it means to be a capable human being in the twentieth century. The new technological tool, computer augmented networks, rests on the foundation of print but requires a new set of proficiencies as well. Like print before it, there are physical and mental requirements for proficient use. And, as with print, wholesale adoption and deployment of the technology potentially renders a whole new class of individuals socially incompetent. These "Have-Nots" will be labeled deficient by virtue of their inability to use a tool because it is either physically inaccessible to them or it requires the manipulation of language, symbols and logic processes foreign to or incompatible with the manner in which they process information. The creation of so many technologically incompetent innocents is not inevitable. First, we must define the value of our computer-based communications tools in terms of their utility to all of humanity rather than having the scope of humanity be defined by our facility to use the tools. Second, we must recognize that our relationship with our tools is one that we define as an inclusive society of humans, rather than as exclusive industries, markets or governments in search of economic and technological advantage. Third, aside from moral and philosophical justifications for revising our national and corporate policies regarding computer and network technology development and deployment, there are potential issues of statutory protection and legal liability as well. The statutory requirements of Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Workforce Investment Act and the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 as well as evolving litigation regarding the scope of discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) confirm that legal remedies may be fashioned to address discriminatory breaches of equitable technological access and societal duties of care. Given the above, there are a host of compelling reasons for revising our national and corporate policies regarding technology to meet these shortcomings. And, in this regard, there are corporate, engineering, legal and regulatory strategies which can be employed. For example, continuing government incentives that encourage focused research and development in human computer interface and interaction (HCI) informed by the precepts of universal design and usability would be a necessary first step. Other potential strategies would include: (1) the provision of tax credits to firms engaging in product centered R&D on universal design applications in HCI; (2) the use of federal and state government procurement purchase power to provide initial market demand; (3) the use of low cost loans to assist in the acquisition of assisitive technology by members of the disabled public; and (4) the development and thoughtful implementation of corporate and/or government impact assessment procedures at the critical stages of design, beta testing, initial deployment, and product maturity. Such strategies would be instrumental in building a set of universally designed advanced network technologies available to all. In addition, it will be necessary to develop a more comprehensive and coordinated government policy and implementation strategy supporting access to usable information technologies. The critical elements of such a policy would include: consistency in the definition of what constitutes a disability across all government agencies, departments and commissions, extension of the accessibility policy's applicability regardless of network technology platform, and coherence in application of needs/costs analysis. It is hopeful that an emphasis on HCI and Universal Design could have another beneficial effect. It could encourage a more widespread public debate about just what function technology should serve for us. Otherwise, widespread availability coupled with uninformed and uncritical usage could net many of the same undesirable consequences as inequitable deployment. [1]By Allen S. Hammond, IV, Professor of law, Santa Clara University School of Law. The researchand writing of this article was supported by grants from theEducation Development Center, Inc.,the Center for Science Technology and Society at Santa Clara University and theSanta Clara UniversitySchool of Law. I wish to acknowledge the research assistance ofLaura Arsaga, Marcus Colabianchi, Jennifer E. Hodges, Nikki Pope and NicoleWalker. |
 |
