An increasing ratio of population chooses to incorporate new technologies to their everyday lives. In addition, many of them tend to accept possible collateral damage to their privacy as necessary price for accessing digitally enhanced services. Based on ongoing academic research on people’s everyday experiences of digital technologies, the panelists aim to challenge the conclusion that users are smoothly adjusting to datafication.
The studies presented reveal that people are constantly negotiating the places of technology in their daily lives, and as result of these negotiations, specific practices are being created. A detailed analysis of “the experiential landscapes of datafied life” is crucial for understanding the effects of datafication from the perspective of users.
The presentations in the panel will discuss smart insurance from the point of view of distributed autonomy, reflect the effects of surveillance with the concept ‘privacy vulnerability’, and share ideas on fostering imagination for alternative (data) futures.
Presentations in this session:
- Presenter: Minna Saariketo
In her PhD dissertation, Saariketo studies the imaginaries of agency that people share concerning their daily life infused with networked digital technology. In her talk, she will discuss findings from her case studies that demonstrate people’s lack of imagination on alternative data realities. She will share her ideas on fostering imagination on alternative futures.
- Presenter: Maiju Tanninen
In her ongoing PhD project, Tanninen studies how autonomy is at stake with the so-called ‘smart insurance’ products that combine self-tracking technologies with life insurance. By analysing both the insurance companies’ practices and the ways in which consumers use and experience this technology, Tanninen (et.al) develop the concept of distributed autonomy and provide empirical insights on the implementation of the ‘nudge’.
- Presenter: Heikki Heikkilä
In their Academy project on ‘banal surveillance’, Heikkilä aims to go beyond the general effects of surveillance by focusing on the notion of privacy vulnerability. Which social groups are likely to suffer most of surveillance and why is it so? Should this perspective matter when discussing the policy implications of datafication?