providers, care givers, familiars, etc. But, if they were aware of existing regulations
and basic principles, they would be able to avoid these effects.
Therefore, in order to prevent undesired ethical impacts, it is necessary to provide
designers with ethical or moral guidelines that help them to avoid unnecessary
collisions with users’ civil rights. The need and convenience of inclusive and
ethically aware design guidelines is studied and discussed by Abascal and Nicolle
[Abascal and Nicolle, 2005].
Ethical guidelines are not yet well established and disseminated. Nevertheless,
examples of good practice, compiled by diverse research groups, user associations,
institutions, etc., may help people interested in developing ethical impact-free
applications and systems. For instance, the effects of tagging systems on elderly
people affected by dementia are carefully studied by Nicolle [Nicolle, 1998]. On
the other hand, Casas et al., [Casas et al., 2006], analyse the type of information
200
4. Ambient Intelligence and implications for
people with disabilities
that can be stored and transmitted by indoor location systems for fragile elderly
people in institutions, and provide useful design guidelines.
Several ethical issues in Ambient Intelligence environments do not only affect
people with disabilities and elderly people as shown in [Bohn et al., 2005] and
[Robinson et al., 2005]. For instance, the impact over user’s privacy of location
systems -and technical alternatives to decrease it- are recurrently discussed, by
[Myles et al., 2003], [Beresford and Stajano, 2003], [Clarke, 1999], etc. Civil rights
protection of common users would have evident benefits in protecting the rights
of people with disabilities and elderly people. Nevertheless, some basic protective
requirements, such as “informed consent”, are hardly extensible to the case of
people with cognitive restrictions, which require further discussion.
4.3.8 Conclusion
Below is a brief Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis
summarising the issues and possibilities:
Strengths
• Allows an end user more personal freedom, and better access to their
environment
• Potential to give full access to places previously unavailable
• Increased safety, comfort, convenience, security.
Weaknesses
• Data is broadcast, open to interference
• Updating of the systems: possible that the information can become out of
sync
• Computers will do what they are programmed to do, so are liable to make
the incorrect choices in some situations.
Opportunities
• Improved security to ensure no interception of information
• Regular reviews to ensure customer satisfaction, relevant information
• Ability to review the ‘automatic’ decisions made by the system.
201
4. Ambient Intelligence and implications for
people with disabilities
Threats
Misuse of information
AmI benefits may be negated by numerous threats such as accidental or
intentional misuse of the components of AmI systems (tags, sensors, readers, other
smart devices and so on) and associated databases, and by a wide range of issues
such as privacy and personal well-being (societal and ethical issues). Indeed,
various issues related to pervasive security problems can lead to enlarged privacy
violations committed by insiders and outsiders, e. g . misuses of databases
associated with RFID tag information, or remote surveillance whenever AmI
devices are vulnerable (lack of security guarantee).
The difference between misuse and abuse of data is that misuse refers to the case
where an organisation for example does not protect its systems adequately and
has its data stolen through a computer attack. Abuse refers to an organisation that
sells personal data to a second one.
Illegal use of information
Danger of identity theft: most actions in everyday life carry identity information and
to be able to perform them, people need to present identity for identification or
authentication purposes. Hence, identity theft is becoming a very serious problem
which compromises the safety of people and the integrity of the identity of each
individual. The Internet and the increasing importance of electronic transactions
and subsequent digital traces exacerbate the problem as it becomes easier for an
identity thief to carry out fraud:
Incorrect decisions made automatically, without the awareness
of the end user
Safety shortcomings.
These are some of the issues which should be addressed when developing AmI
applications. However, human beings need other people who cannot be replaced
by AmI. But sometimes technology can help in everyday life. Ethics is about the
relationship between persons but can also be expected to say something about
people when they use technology. It is important how technology is used: what can
it be used for and how should it be developed? When agreement is reached in a
parliament, it can turn into law. Ethical discussions, policies, guidelines and
legislation are needed to overcome the challenges posed by Ambient Intelligence.
202
4. Ambient Intelligence and implications for
people with disabilities
4.3.9 References
ABASCAL J., NICOLLE C., (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for
socially and ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers. Vol. 17, Issue 5. Pp.
484-505. Special issue on Social Impact of Emerging Technologies, Edited by V.
Kostakos, L. Little, E. O'Neill and E. Sillence. (Available on-line).
American Association for Artificial Intelligence;
http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/rooms.html
BERESFORD, A., STAJANO, F., (2003). Location privacy in pervasive computing.
IEEE Pervasive Computing vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 46–55.
BOHN J., COROAMA V., LANGHEINRICH M., MATTERN F., ROHS M., (2005).
Social, Economic, and Ethical Implications of Ambient Intelligence and Ubiquitous
Computing. W. Weber, J. Rabaey, E. Aarts (Eds.): Ambient Intelligence, Springer-
Verlag, ISBN 3-540-23867-0, pp. 5-29.
CASAS R., MARCO A., FALCÓ J. L, ARTIGAS J. I., ABASCAL J., (2006). Ethically
Aware Design of a Location System for People with Dementia. In K.
Miesenberger et al. (Eds.): ICCHP 2006, LNCS 4061, pp. 777-784. Springer-
Verlag.
CASERT, R., (2004). Rathenau Institute’s Workshop Ambient Intelligence: In the
service of Man? EUSAI 2004 symposium, November 8-10, 2004, Eindhoven
University of Technology, The Netherlands, 20pp.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 364, 18.12.2000,
p. 1. http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf , 2000.
CLARKE, R., (1999). Person-Location and Person-Tracking: Technologies. Risks
and Policy Implications. Proceedings of International Conference on Privacy and
Personal Data Protection. Hong Kong; 131–150.
Directive 73/23/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits -
'the low voltage Directive'.
Directive 89/336/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Members States
relating to electromagnetic compatibility.
Directive 95/46/EC on the processing of personal data.
Directive 97/66/EC on the protection of privacy and the processing of personal
data in the telecommunications sector.
203
4. Ambient Intelligence and implications for
people with disabilities
Directive 1999/5/EC on radio equipment, telecommunications terminal
equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity.
Directive 2001/95/EEC on general product safety.
Directive 2002 /22/EC on universal service and user's rights to electronic
communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).
Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector.
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).
FIDIS deliverable. D5.2b: ID-related Crime: Towards a Common Ground for
Interdisciplinary Research, Editors: Ronald Leenes (Tilburg University, The
Netherlands), May 2006.
FIDIS deliverable, (2005). D7.3: “Report on Actual and Possible Profiling
Techniques in the Field of Ambient Intelligence”, Editors: Wim Schreurs, Mireille
Hildebrandt (VUB, Belgium)
Mark Gasson, Kevin Warwick (Reading University, UK), August 2005.
Information for Data Controllers, Irish Data Protection Commissioners, (2003).
http://www.dataprivacy.ie/viewdoc.asp?Docid=192&Catid=49&StartDate=1+Jan
uary+2006&m=p
International workshop on accessibility requirements for public procurement in
the ICT domain. 19-21 October, 2004, Brussels. Workshop organised by the
European Commission, the US Access Board, the European standardisation
organisations and contributions of the European Disability Forum (EDF) with
support of the eInclusion@EU project. http://www.einclusion-eu.org
KAMMEN, J. van, (2003). Care Technology, chances for innovation and use (In
Dutch), STT66, The Hague; info@stt.nl .
KEMPPAINEN, E. Moral and Legislative Issues with regard to Ambient
Intelligence.
http://www.cnti.org.cy/Cost219/Cost219terCyprusWorkshop/index.html
MORGANATI, F., RIVA, G., (2005). Ambient Intelligence for Rehabilitation. In
Ambient Intelligence, IOSPress, p283-295.
MYLES, G., FRIDAY, A., DAVIES, N., (2003). Preserving privacy in environments
with location-based applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2 (1), 56–64.
204
4. Ambient Intelligence and implications for
people with disabilities
NICOLLE, C., (1998). Issues in the Use of Tagging for People who Wander - A
European Perspective. Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland, Vol. 58, pp.
10-22.
PUNIE,Y., DELAITRE, S. & MAGHIROS, I., (2006). Dark scenarios in ambient
intelligence: Highlighting risks and vulnerabilities. Deliverable D2. Safeguards in a
World of Ambient Intelligence (SWAMI).
http://swami.jrc.es.pages/deliverables.htm
ROBINSON P., VOGT H., WAGEALLA, W. (Eds.), (2005). Privacy, Security and Trust
within the Context of Pervasive Computing. The Kluwer International Series in
Engineering and Computer Science, Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., ISBN
0-387-23461-6.
SOEDE, M.; Ambient Intelligence and Disability. where do they meet?
http://www.cnti.org.cy/Cost219/Cost219terCyprusWorkshop/index.html
205
5.
The regulatory scene
5. The regulatory scene
5.1 Regulation at the crossroads
Tony Shipley
The future of European regulation on Telecommunications, and more generally, on
Electronic Communications, is in the balance. As this book goes to press, the
European Commission is consulting on proposed revisions to the set of Directives
on Electronic Communications – the so-called ‘Framework Directives’. Revision of
the Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive – the RTTE
Directive – has been placed on hold while any changes to the Framework
Directives are considered. At the same time, the review of Relevant Markets is
proceeding and an outcome is expected early in 2007. Each of these processes
offers the possibility of profound change in the regulatory approach or, in the
absence of agreement on changes, an acceptance of the status quo. COST 219ter
and its member bodies will be taking part in the consultation processes and
submitting comments and proposals, informed by the studies and debates that
have formed part of this COST Action. There is of course no certainty that the
revisions that COST 219ter would like to see put in place will form part of the final
decisions. There is the possibility that profound changes could radically alter the
ways in which the declared objective of COST 219ter would have to be
approached, in the years following the conclusion of this particular Action. This
Chapter will explore some of the issues which will influence the future of
regulation and it will attempt to assess the effects of the possible outcomes.
Legislators will be faced with a choice of directions, each one having a different
regulatory impact, so it is fair to make the comment that regulation is indeed ‘at
the crossroads’.
5.1.1 The shape of regulation now
The Framework Directives
Five Directives were proposed in 2000 and subsequently enacted. These were:
• A common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks
and services
• Universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications
networks and services (Universal Service Directive)
206
5.
The regulatory scene
• Access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and
associated facilities
• The processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector
• The authorisation of electronics communications networks and services.
These five Directives, together with the RTTE Directive of 1999, make up the
current European regulatory framework for Electronic Communications. There are
further Directives, such as ‘TV without Fr o n t i e r s ’ , which specifically cover
Broadcasting.
The 2006 Review
By 2006, the Framework Directives were due for review as part of the regular
process for updating EU Directives. Review of the RTTE Directive had commenced
a year earlier. There are several stages to the review and the process began with
an examination of the scope of universal service. This was followed by wide
consultation on the general and specific matters to be considered in the review,
with the EU Member States as well as all other interested parties being invited to
make submissions. In June 2006, having taken into account the views expressed
in this consultation, the Commission tabled its formal proposals for the revisions
to the Framework Directives.
COST 219ter has contributed to this consultation in various ways – by direct
response to the invitation and by responses from its national Reference Groups –
by putting views to Member State Governments to inform their own comments –
and by discussion and debate in the INCOM (Inclusive Communications)
Committee set up by the European Commission. In the direct response COST
219ter made the points which follow, and this submission encapsulates the policy
which the members of this Action wish to promote.
COST 219ter Submission to the Preliminary Consultation Round
“Our main area of interest is the Universal Service Directive which, in addition to
defining the minimum set of service provisions guaranteed through universal
service, also sets out the statutory rights of users. We believe that it is necessary
for these universal service obligations and users’ rights to be extended fully to
mobile networks, and also for enabling powers to be given to national regulators
to apply similar obligations within their own territories to broadband services and
to new generation networks and services. We are aware of the argument that
207
5.
The regulatory scene
regulation may have a stifling effect upon innovative services, and we are also
aware that the Commission has previously shown reluctance to extend universal
service coverage to sectors where roll-out across the EU is incomplete. We wish to
counter these lines of argument by emphasising that users’ rights will be greatly
devalued if they are confined to types of service delivery that are approaching
obsolescence. Furt h e rm o re, patterns in new generation services will have
developed very significantly by the time that the outcomes of the next review of
the Framework Directives can be applied, and any undesirable features that have
become entrenched will then be very difficult to correct. We are not pressing for
a more intrusive regulatory regime, but instead we are asking for national
regulators to be empowered to introduce regulation in new generation services,
including broadband, where they consider it to be essential. We are supportive of
the principle that regulation is necessary only where the market has failed to
deliver, but we contend that it is inherent to this principle that regulators must be
able to intervene rapidly, through subsidiarity powers if appropriate, where market
failure is evident. If fast moving technologies are being brought to the market at
differing rates across the EU’s Member States, then observation and – where
necessary – corrective intervention, must be applied nationally.
On the specific features of the Universal Service Directive, we would hope to see
further clarification of the obligations in respect of calls to the 112 emergency
number. The present requirement relates only to the connection of such calls and
leaves open the manner in which the calls are handled, so that there is an almost
complete reliance upon voice calls. In our view, this is inappropriate for modern
networks and is contrary to the spirit of the Directives and their emphasis upon
universality. We will argue that 112 should be accessible to all users in the
telecommunication modality that they normally use – in other words, if the
network offers any particular modality for public communication, 112 access
should be provided in that modality. Linked to this, we want to see clarification of
the definition of a Publicly Available Telephone Service, so that access to
e m e rgency numbers is seen as an obligation on all networks off e r i n g
telecommunication services to the public.
The availability and affordability of accessible terminals for disabled users is a
matter which continues to be a cause for concern and, in our view, this is a service
provision issue which goes beyond the technical requirements of the RTTE
Directive. If market forces alone, in respect of the terminals manufacturing
industry, have not delivered obtainable and affordable equipment, we believe
there is a case for intervention as a universal service issue, for otherwise the goal
of a set of services accessible to all users cannot be achieved. While the recent
revision of the Public Procurement Directive will eventually lead to an improved
208
5.
The regulatory scene
perception of the accessibility features that are required, we take the view that this
objective can be advanced and accelerated if national agencies can use the
mechanisms of universal service funding to stimulate the market for accessible
terminals. Without wishing to advance any particular service models, we note that
some Member States have mechanisms in place to promote the supply of terminals
that would not otherwise be available. We believe that this is a legitimate use of
universal service funding resources that should be specifically encouraged in a
revision of that particular Directive”.
In making these comments, COST 219ter was aware that there was great
reluctance within the Commission to propose extension of universal service rights
and obligations across the mobile and broadband sectors throughout the EU,
presumably on the grounds that the roll-out of such services was uneven and
Member States would therefore raise strong objections where they considered that
application of universal service principles would be premature. Similar objections
would be raised in respect of New Generation Services (and networks). The
proposed alternative was therefore to allow freedom to National Regulators to
apply such extensions once the services in their territories had reached an
appropriate degree of maturity. COST 219ter members were acutely aware that
technological and commercial developments in electronic communications service
delivery move at a rapid pace, with the result that new patterns of service can
become established before the regulatory bodies are able to take action. The
balance between encouraging novel and welcome developments, on the one hand,
and maintaining the basic user safeguards, on the other, can be a delicate one. If
the introduction of new types of service across the EU Member States is not
uniform, and there is no reason why it should be, then it is vital that regulators at
a national level should be empowered to act when they consider that the time is
right.
The empowerment of National Regulators does not mean that the principles of the
Single Market have to be discarded, for national differences in service delivery
patterns are already recognised, particularly in the application of universal service.
The Commission’s Communications Committee (COCOM), which monitors the
implementation of the Electronic Communications Directives, is able to foster a
harmonised approach in subsidiarity issues, that is to say, those areas of regulation
which are devolved to Member States because fully centralised regulation would
be heavy-handed or inappropriate. Use of this mechanism, instead of waiting for a
further revision of a centralised Directive, offers a vitally important method of
ensuring that users’ rights and safeguards are maintained in evolving services. It
should also ensure that the delivery of the set of basic services, defined as universal
service, is not consigned solely to traditional networks which may be facing
obsolescence.
209
5.
The regulatory scene
The emphasis in COST 219ter’s submission - above - upon the manner of making
112 emergency calls arose because this facility was seen as an important indicator
of the availability of basic services. Traditionally a feature of PSTN networks, it has
become obligatory for mobile services available to the public,