For those of you who recall my earlier entry discussing the Philips Design probe discussion (reLink), consider this a follow-on post.
I took the time to sit in on the Philips meeting and while I crashed out (twice) and lost my chat record, you can read it here: “Sophrosyne’s Saturday Salon: Philips Design Probe – SKIN:Tattoo” (Link).
I hadn’t really intended to get too involved with the discussion, but… well, you know how it goes. And as I mentioned something I’ve not really discussed here, I figure I’ll point it out and include related links.
So, from the meeting/chat log discussing “changeable tattoos”, here’s an edited/shortened portion (to clean up the grammar and spelling as well as to more efficiently tie together threads of conversation):
Csven Concord: What about the potential negatives for this sort of tech?
Yel Oh {Philips designer}: The negatives are of course very much an issue, but remember we are talking post-2020 here.
Sophrosyne Stenvaag: I could see going into a business meeting and setting them to “randomize” – or hacking them to give incorrect info –
Csven Concord: Why is post-2020 important in this context?
Yel Oh: Well, Csven, negatives for a current technology may not be such issues in ten years time . . .
Yel Oh: …although there are bound to be other negatives instead.
Csven Concord: Same could be said of “positives”.
Csven Concord: I’m just curious if you’re tracking both.
Csven Concord: “The street has its own use…”
Sophrosyne Stenvaag: Maybe the most interesting thing about tech is how its users hack it to fit it into their own social context.
Yel Oh: More interesting is to consider deeply the positive (and negative) mis-use of technology applications.
Csven Concord: Scenario: morphable tats become “skinboards” (future billboards). Flood the beaches. And the hackers have a field day.
Yel Oh: ahhh, Csven so bleak . . .
Sophrosyne Stenvaag: skin spam –
Csven Concord: In an effort to stay positive, what about RFID-style applications people might want? Say, for group association that opens access to shared products (displays, coffeemaker, etc)?
Csven Concord: Or, something I was considering a while back: a “[transreality]” system involving reputation.
Yel Oh: Can you say more about that, Csven?
Csven Concord: So your reputation actually gets reflected both online (e.g. via iKarma), and is connected to your real skin… which morphs according to how Good or Bad your rep is.
Csven Concord: Could do the same with skin implants. “Beauty” reflecting reputation.
Wendyy Mahana: Yes, Csven, that is definitely something you can think of.
Shirley Marquez: That won’t please the people who like to keep their virtual and real existences separate.
Natsumi Yue: What if you have an undeserved bad reputation?
dandellion Kimban: Is that the world you’d like to live in or the worst nightmare?
Wendyy Mahana: And who defines the reputation?
Csven Concord: ;)
Natsumi, dandellion and Wendyy all hit the nail on the head. Their concerns are my concerns (even when I’m pretending to spin things in a “positive” fashion for the host’s sake).
–
For those following me on twitter (“csven“, not “reBang“), “reputation chameleon” probably rings a bell since the term is in one of my saved twitter lists (also dutifully added to my “pre-Alpha” blog entry – reLink – along with “fishpaint”, referring to cars having multi-chromatic coloration capability). It’s not that I’m opposed to reputation systems. I’m just very wary of them. And the “reputation chameleon” concept was born out of my thoughts regarding the potential manipulation of a highly connected, transreality reputation-based system.
A reputation chameleon would be a person who, either through “smart” fabric or – more fancifully – morphable tattoos, manipulates some visual indicator of their reputation in order to better fit within a particular social environment. For their own purposes, of course.
As an example, in well-heeled circles someone might “wear” a reputation which garnered the trust of potential targets. While back in the mean streets, they might appear to be both well-connected and dangerous; essentially wearing the bright colors nature assigns to poisonous animals or to those which falsely use similar marks for defensive purposes. In both cases, the individual’s relevant reputation for the appropriate social context (because reputation is often dependent on environment) might be something else entirely.
For now it’s just an interesting bit of imaginative play, but I won’t be surprised when high tech clothing starts to make something like what I’m imagining possible. In any event, here are some recent, relevant links I’ve collected. All either concern or are somehow related to the issue of reputation.
“Manifesto for the Reputation Society” (Link)
Dattoos Personal Skinprint Technology Concept (Link)
Nanogirl: Dermal Display concept (Link)
LiveScience : “Invisible ‘Radio’ Tattoos Could Identify Soldiers” (Link)
Andy Oram: “Reputation: where the personal and the participatory meet up” (Link); also, in installments, on O’Reilly (Link).
ipkarma (Link); also on Mashable (Link).
Web of Trust (Link); also on Mashable (Link).
And just for fun, I thought I’d include a “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” example; a link to someone who I suspect would be a very active reputation chameleon. She’d almost certainly make a great beta tester for exploring the limits of such technology. Enjoy (Link).