Debates about terrorism and technology often focus on the potential uses of technology by non-state terrorist actors and by states as forms of counterterrorism. Yet, little has been written about how technology shapes how we think about terrorism. In this chapter I argue that technology, and the language we use to talk about technology, constrains and shapes our understanding of the nature, scope, and impact of terrorism, particularly in relation to state terrorism. After exploring the ways in which technology shapes (...) moral thinking, I use two case studies to demonstrate how technology simultaneously hides and enables terroristic forms of state violence: police control technologies and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones. In both these cases, I argue that features of these technologies, combined with a narrative of precision and efficiency, serves to mask the terroristic nature of the violence that these practices inflict and reinforces the moral exclusion of those against whom these technologies are deployed. In conclusion, I propose that identifying acts of terrorism requires a focus on the impact of technologies of violence (whether they are “high tech” or not) on those most affected, regardless of whether users of these technologies conceive of their actions as terroristic. (shrink)

The police’s use of facial recognition technologies allows them to verify identification in real-time by mapping facial features into indicators that can be compared with other data stored in its database or in online social networks. Advances in facial recognition technologies have changed law enforcement agencies’ operations, improving their ability to identify suspects, investigate crimes, and deter criminal behavior. Most applications are used in tracking and identifying potential terrorists, searching for abducted and missing persons, and security surveillance at airports, national (...) borders, and large public gatherings. However, for facial recognition technologies to fulfill their potential, they must not only be adopted by the police, but the public must also support their routine use. Using a secondary data analysis of a public opinion survey conducted by the Pew Research Center among a representative sample of US residents (N = 5307), we investigated the factors associated with the public`s expectations about the positive and negative outcomes of the police’s adoption of facial recognition technologies. Our results show that public attitudes to FRT are balanced, indicating awareness of the public for potential advantages, but also disadvantages of police adoption of FRT. Privacy considerations and familiarity with the technology were found to be critical for the explanation of public attitudes expressing both positive and negative expectations from the police adoption of facial recognition technology. Our study contributes to the understanding of the factors associated with public attitudes police’s use of facial recognition technologies. (shrink)

Biometric technologies are at the forefront of organizational innovation, surveillance, and control. In many instances, the use of physiological and behavioral biometrics enhances individual and organizational performance. However, they also have the potential to hinder human wellbeing. In particular, recent generations of biometrics are capable of extracting deeper insights into human behavior, enabling organizational surveillance practices, but may also constrain individual rights and freedoms. While biometric technologies have been evidenced to infringe upon privacy and lead to discriminatory practices, little research (...) has examined the impact of biometrics on dignity, an important ethical construct related to human wellbeing. In this conceptual paper, we draw from the theory of affordances to identify and delineate six affordances of biometric technologies, categorized into inhibiting and augmenting biometric affordances. We propose a framework in which inhibiting and augmenting biometric affordances may simultaneously support and humiliate dignity. This separation offers a theoretical base for future empirical research to explore the increasingly pervasive relationship between biometric adoption and human dignity. Moreover, we explain six paradoxical tensions across three forms of dignity—inherent, behavioral, and meritocratic—in the proposed framework. Finally, we discuss why firms should be responsible for addressing the tensions across dignity forms when they adopt biometric technologies to balance the trade-off between wealth creation and human wellbeing. This offers guidance for practitioners on how to integrate biometric technologies without hindering human dignity. (shrink)