Abstract In a lifelog, data from different digital sources are combined and processed to form a unified multimedia archive containing information about the quotidian activities of an individual. This dissertation aims to contribute to a responsible development of lifelog technology used by members of the general public for private reasons. Lifelog technology can benefit, but also harm lifeloggers and their social environment. The guiding idea behind this dissertation is that if the ethical challenges can be met and the opportunities realised, the conditions will be optimised for a responsible development and application of the technology. To achieve this, it is important to reflect on these concerns at an early stage of development before the existing rudimentary forms of lifelogs develop into more sophisticated devices with a broad societal application. For this research, a normative framework based on prima facie principles is used. Lifelog technology in its current form is a relatively novel invention and a consensus about its definition is still missing. Therefore the author aims to clarify the characteristics of lifelog technology. Next, the ethical challenges and opportunities of lifelogs are analysed, as they have been discussed in the scholarly literature on the ethics of lifelog technology. Against this backdrop, ethical challenges and opportunities are identified and elaborated. The normative analysis concentrates on two areas of concern, namely (1) the ethical challenges and opportunities that result from the use of lifelog technology, and (2) the conditions under which one becomes a lifelogger. For the first, three sets of key issues are discussed, namely issues to do with (a) privacy, (b) autonomy, and (c) beneficence. For the second, one key set of issues is examined, namely issues to do with autonomy. The discussion of each set of issues is concluded with recommendations designed to tackle the challenges and realise the opportunities.
the opportunities, so that the technology is beneficial for or, at least, does minimal to no harm to the interests of lifeloggers and non-lifeloggers. The inquiry is restricted in eight important ways. 1) The moral challenges and opportunities manifest at three different stages: research and development, trials, and use. The analysis at hand focuses on challenges and opportunities that occur when lifelog technology is available and used as an end-product. 2) Lifelog technology can be used by different agents: private individuals, public institutions, government agencies, and corporations could deploy lifelog technology. This study is concentrated upon lifelog technology that is purchased or installed by members of the general public. 3) Lifelog technology can be used for different purposes. In this study, the use of lifelogs for private purposes by members of the general public is discussed. As shown later (2.3.2 Purposes and 2.3.3 Users), lifelog technology can also be deployed in professional or medical settings, so that a better insight into the behaviour of employees or patients is obtained. 4) Even more specifically, when lifelog technology is made available to members of the general public, the moral challenges and opportunities manifest at three stages: (1) when a non-lifelogger becomes a lifelogger; (2) when lifelogs are being used; (3) and when a lifelogger quits being a lifelogger. This study focuses on the first two. 5) Lifelogs are currently only at a rudimentary stage of development, leaving room for a broad spectrum of contingencies concerning their future functioning. Therefore, a plausible future scenario is used to delimit ethical research and illustrate ethical concerns. Since the technology is still at an early stage of development, a future scenario is generally an acceptable way to contextualise the ethical analysis and identify normative issues (Wright et al. 2008). The scenario is not intended to be an accurate prediction of the future. Instead it provides one of many future possibilities, which can be used to discuss the potential merits and demerits of the technology. Even though the scenario is fictional, the plausibility of the scenario will be substantiated by referring to current research findings. 6) This research focuses on three key sets of issues, namely issues with respect to privacy, autonomy, and beneficence, when discussing the moral challenges and opportunities
adversity towards the further development of the field. In fact, some challenges are identified to streamline the development and integration. Smith, O’Hara & Lewis (2011), for example identify more challenges than opportunities although they propose lifelog software. Citizen empowerment Lifelogs may empower citizens against undesirable behaviour of the authorities. Many sources mention sousveillance: citizens monitoring the authorities (Allen 2008; Bell & Gemmell 2009; Mann 2004a; Mann 2004b; Mann 2005a; Mann 2005b; Mann, Fung & Lo 2006; O’Hara, Tuffield & Shadbolt 2009; Rawassizadeh 2011; Weber 2010). Sousveillance is a reversal of surveillance in which the authorities watch citizens. Mann, who coined the term, broadly interprets it as both the secret taping of police brutality as well as questionnaires from the management handed to shoppers about their staff (Mann 2002). This latter example is sousveillance and organised within an organisation. Relevant to lifelogs is out-of-band sousveillance. This is sousveillance by people outside the organisation. Lifelogs could record the behaviour of the authorities. These records can be shared. This way, the authorities are better controlled, because behaviour by officials is increasingly made visible. Equiveillance, balancing surveillance and sousveillance, is another opportunity identified by Mann. This concept seems to entail that the adverse effects of surveillance would be cancelled out by sousveillance (Mann 2004a). A related opportunity is the ability to provide information about one’s innocence to the authorities to refute accusations (O’Hara, Tuffield & Shadbolt 2009). Personalised services By using lifelogs, data software can be developed to increasingly accommodate the needs of specific users or groups, such as aids to memory, information retrieval, recommendation systems, educational tools, research tools, policy information, organisational information, information for historical studies (Bell & Gemmell 2009; Kang et al. 2011; Mann 2004a;
Dworkin, G. 1976. Autonomy and Behavior Control. The Hastings Center Report, 6(1), pp. 23-28. Dworkin, G. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Facebook. 2013a. Does Facebook allow photos of mothers breastfeeding? [Online]. Available from: [Accessed 23-08-2013]. Facebook. 2013b. Facebook Community Standards [Online]. Available from: [Accessed Foster, C. 2009. Choosing Life, Choosing Death: The Tyranny of Autonomy in Medical Ethics and Law. Portland: Hart Publishing. Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. London: Penguin. Frankena, W.K. 1973. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Frankfurt, H.G. 1971. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), pp. 5-20. Friedman, M. 2003. Autonomy, Gender, Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Fuchs, A.E. 2001. Autonomy, Slavery, and Mill's Critique of Paternalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4(3), pp.231-251. Gandy, O.H. 2006. Data-mining, surveillance and discrimination in the post-9/11 environment. IN: Haggerty, K. & Ericson, R. (Eds.), The new politics of surveillance and visibility, pp. 363-384. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gavison, R. 1980. Privacy and the Limits of Law. The Yale Law Journal, 89(3), pp. 421-471. Gellman, B. & Miller, G. 2013. U.S. spy network’s successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary [Online]. The Washington Post. Available from: [Accessed George, A. 2013. The Best Dash Cam. The Wirecutter. Available from: [Accessed Gerster Trocola, M. 2005. Breastfeeding in Public. NEW BEGINNINGS, 22(6), pp. 238-243.
Oshana, M.A.L. 2002. The Misguided Marriage of Responsibility and Autonomy. The Journal of Ethics, 6(3), pp 261-280. Pariser, E. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. London: Penguin Books. Parker, E.S., Cahill, L. & McGaugh, J.L. 2006. A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition, 12(1), pp. 35-49. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2010. Public Law 111-148, March 23, 2010. Piper, M. 2010. Autonomy: Normative [Online]. IN: Fieser, J. & Dowden, B. (eds.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2013 Ed. Available from: [Accessed 20-08-2013]. Protalinski, E. 2012. Breastfeeding women protest outside Facebook offices [Online]. ZDNet. Available from: [Accessed 10-06-2013]. Putnam, H. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press. Quine, W.V.O. 1963. From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Reiman, J.H. 1995. Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway Technology of the Future, Santa Clara High Tech Law Journal, 11(1), pp. 27-44. Rhodes, R. Autonomy, Respect, and Genetic Information Policy: A Reply to Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25(1), pp. 114–120. Rich, M. 2006. Product Placement Deals Make Leap From Film to Books [Online]. The New York Times. Available from: [Accessed 10-06-2013]. Rössler, B. 2002. Problems with Autonomy. Hypatia, 17(4), pp. 143-162. Rössler, B. 2010. Over autonomie en rechtvaardigheid. Oratio 368. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA. Saga. 2013. Lifelogging is better with friends [Online]. Available from: [Accessed
nonetheless important. Developers building lifelogs should assess how their technology could harm the lifelogger or others recorded by the lifelogger and develop ways to avoid this harm from happening. A ‘value sensitive design’-approach or the help and knowledge of disciplines outside engineering and computing science can be beneficial, such as psychology, medicine, ethics, and environmental studies. Identify possible opportunities: Developers should assess the potential opportunities for beneficence. Information can be useful in several ways but information has to be presented in a way and form that is constructive to realise the opportunities. The opportunities are likely to be realised only with a conscious effort to achieve them, as the benefits from lifelogs are by no means self-evident. Involve experts: Lifelog developers should involve experts capable of identifying issues and benefits and able to guide the development of the technology so that the benefits are reaped and the issues solved. Realising the opportunities is not and often requires expert knowledge. A multidisciplinary approach in which knowledge from various disciplines necessary for an ethical development of lifelog technology, such as communication studies, psychology, ethics, and medicine. If the lifelog aims to promote a capacity the information as well as the presentation should suit the purposes of this capability. Address concerns regarding privacy: The previously provided recommendations to safeguard privacy should be followed (4.6 Recommendations). Harm is often resulting from failures to protect privacy of lifeloggers and non-lifeloggers. Safeguarding privacy by following the provided recommendations will alleviate some of the concerns regarding beneficence, such as for the capability ‘bodily integrity’. Address concerns regarding autonomy: Also, the recommendations to safeguard autonomy should be followed, e.g. a high standard for the quality of information can benefit lifeloggers and non-lifeloggers. In the following as well as in the previous chapter, recommendations are offered that can be helpful to address concerns for the autonomy of lifeloggers and non-lifeloggers (5.4 Recommendations and 7.3 Recommendations).
Appendix C: Checklist for beneficence There is one important difference between this list and the ones above. The questions are formulated more abstractly because the various aspects to beneficence make them too numerous for one list. In order to answer this checklist one needs to have some understanding of the capabilities. Table 7: Checklist for beneficence No challenge or opportunity Potential opportunity Potential challenge Preliminary Is there sufficient expertise present to evaluate and guide the development of the technology to prevent harm and/or reap the benefits? Yes Uncertain/No Does the application or devices affect the lifelogger’s or non-lifeloggers’ capabilities? If ‘No’ (end here), if ‘Yes’ continue Capabilities Does the application/device affect ‘life’? If ‘No’ (go to b), if ‘Yes’ continue to b Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Bodily Health’? If ‘No’ (go to c), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Bodily Integrity’? If ‘No’ (go to d), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain
Does the application/device affect ‘Senses, Imagination, and Thought’? If ‘No’ (go to e), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Emotions’? If ‘No’ (go to f), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Practical Reason’? If ‘No’ (go to g), if ‘Yes’ continue) Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Affiliation’? If ‘No’ (go to h), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Other Species’? If ‘No’ (go to i), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Play’? If ‘No’ (go to j), if ‘Yes’ continue Is the technology expected to advance (an element of) the capability? Uncertain/No Yes Is the technology expected to hinder (an element of) the capability? No Yes/Uncertain Does the application/device affect ‘Control over one's Environment’? If ‘No’ (go to 3), if ‘Yes’ continue