Alta Formazione

Determinants of social attitudes towards the application of drone technology under the treat of the Covid-19 pandemic exposure

Summary

The research objective of this article entitled “Determinants of social attitudes towards the application of drone technology under the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic exposure” is an analysis of variables and selected case studies affecting the attitudes of society in the event of a unique threat to social security, which was undoubtedly the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Main research method used in this article is an analysis of case studies of citizens’ attitudes and their implications towards rapidly advancing technological changes, which are inhibited by the new, unprecedented global threat of a pandemic. The authors of the publication focused in particular on the impact of drone technologies on social attitudes. As a consequence of the conducted discourse, the authors have formulated conclusions and observations that indicate the need for wider education of the society in the field of implemented technological solutions. It is also important to conclude that new technical solutions implemented hastily under the pretext of a pandemic evoke ambiguous social opinions and different attitudes, often constituting a substitute for violating the privacy of citizens in addition to improving our everyday life.

For centuries, communities around the world have passed cyclically and sinusoidally through the stages of various crises, plagues, economic recovery and downturns. COVID-19 is probably the first such serious threat and challenge for civilization, especially for residents of highly connected and neural-linked cities in highly developed economies and capitalist countries. The advent of COVID, meanwhile, has exposed a definite weakness and increased risk to these centralized locations, giving the virus threat the natural environment for rapid, efficient and virtually unlimited replication. When considering the imperfections of the formulas of social clusters, it is impossible to ignore one more important dimension – social capitalism of information functioned until recently, although it relatively quickly gave way to another social phenomenon – wide-spread surveillance[1]. The consequences of a pandemic in the social sphere are very clear and multi-dimensional. One of the dimensions of sudden forced isolation and protection against the “invisible enemy” in the form of a spreading virus is accelerated absorption, application and often thoughtless acceptance of the injection of new technologies and innovative solutions in social life, affecting the sphere of citizens’ security. From a sociological point of view, there is a fine line between the violation of citizens’ right to privacy and the security of citizens, and the pretext of a pandemic may become an inhibitor of illegal and unethical, intentional or incidental practices.The technology of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as “drones”, is an element of technological innovation, which is a technical and social phenomenon that fits in with new trends, while also entering the aspects of surveillance. This article is an attempt to analyze the impact of drones, which are systematically and gradually present in the everyday life of citizens both in Poland and in the world, on their social attitudes.  Drones are currently used for commercial, public safety, non-commercial (entertainment) and scientific research purposes.  Healthcare drones, media drones, drug delivery drones, vaccines and shopping in the COVID era … However, it is uncertain whether the public will accept this highly potential “influx” of new technology in the form of drones. The question arises – what are the current attitudes of society regarding the use and presence of drones[2], which are irresistibly associated with surveillance and violation of the sphere of comfort and safety, and going further – can the global pandemic cause noticeable changes in social attitudes in this regard? In this article, we aim to analyze this current and socially significant phenomenon.               For years, sociological academic bodies have been undertaking multifaceted considerations in the field of the sense of security. One of the theories is that the sense of security in practice means the situation of “embedding individuals in the social system, which enables individuals to” tame reality “, i.e. perceive it in terms of ” familiarity”[3]. Drones in public space definitely disturb the known to us, among others 20th century canons of security and violate the thin line of technology access to our privacy. The appearance of a flying object controlled by an unidentified operator and the characteristic sound of a drone in the public space is definitely not associated with “normality” yet, but more closely related to surveillance, generating a sense of uncertainty associated with the sociological and economic concept of “surveillance capitalism”. Surveillance capitalism is a social concept, the author of which is prof. Shoshanna Zuboff of Harvard University. According to the definition of the author quoting: “it is a new economic system in which people’s experiences were recognized as freely available, raw material, (…), a parasitic economic logic in which the production of goods and services is subordinated to a new global architecture based on the modification of human behavior (… )[4]“. Meanwhile, the transition from information to surveillance was virtually imperceptible[5]. At the beginning, seemingly innocent new market phenomena developed for the needs of digital media, e.g. not yet effective practices of tracking our activity on the Internet, such as cookies, appeared. Along with this, there were also the first disputes and even legislative attempts to protect the privacy and data of users. According to prof. Zuboff, we can observe attempts to rationalize our privacy, according to the principle of “you have nothing to hide – you are nobody”[6]. Surveillance capitalism began to develop without encountering obstacles and, as a result, becoming the dominant form for the entire social life and economy, going beyond the Internet network and entering all spheres of social life, also by popularizing unmanned aerial vehicles in public space and their virtually unlimited access to all properties and individuals. Moreover, the potentially ground-breaking achievements it produces (such as the Internet of Things or artificial intelligence) have significantly predictable consequences. The very dynamics and structure of the digital race are also opaque, because most of the technologies created within it belong to the so-called “Dual-use”, i.e. they can be used both as weapons and for non-military purposes, and in the COVID-19 era even in important social spheres and protection of citizens’ health, hence it is even more difficult to control them. Innovations are quickly implemented and are used to develop and implement new innovations even faster[7], which in short time intervals constantly destabilizes the sense of social security. Strictly speaking, the digital arms race coupled with the supervisory capitalism system appears as a process that, at the level of intentions, is supposed to lead to civilization progress and ensure security, but it also leads to new types of destabilization, undermining the foundations not only of order, but also of modern civilization[8]. Observations of this new coupled social phenomenon lead to the conclusion that today’s societies are required to absorb technical issues unimaginably quickly, and moreover, tolerance and acceptance of innovations unique in the perspective of centuries, for their introduction to everyday life and the sphere of security. Artificial intelligence and innovation have helped doctors in Italy and China diagnose infections faster. The media attention was also drawn to the robot dog guarding the epidemic restrictions in the park in Singapore and the drones used for this purpose in selected Japanese, Chinese and American cities[9]. Tracking applications on mobile phones are controversial, and drones and robots are considered only a visible extension of these systems. Among so many new technologies, drones deserve special attention due to the scale of their use in the pandemic era. Drones, UAVs, i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles, are increasingly used in the civilian segment. According to the report of the Market Research Institute, Consumption and Business Cycles and the Mikromakro Institute foundation, the number of drones in Poland already exceeds 100,000. There are numerous publications in the media indicating that “an autonomous drone will fight a fighter plane” or whether there is a “passenger drone or a taxi without a driver”. Public life spaces in which the application of drones has a positive and desirable basis include: inspection of infrastructure facilities, support for rescue services, scientific research, commercial activities[10]. Their uncontrolled use and availability, however, are associated with the possibility of their application in many areas of life. Intentionally used drones can support business and economic espionage through VIP observation, secret objects, actions and terrorist attacks, e.g. the use of weapons, bombing, attacks on ammunition depots, increase the risk of communication events, disrupt the work of dispositional groups, e.g. they can be used as a tool for smuggling, smuggling contraband across national borders. Above all, a question arises about the safety of ordinary citizens. The broadly understood social awareness has a decisive influence on social attitudes. The said social awareness consists of a complex repetition of elements: common thinking, public opinion, scientific knowledge, the sphere of the sacred and ideologies, literature and art[11]. Meanwhile, common thinking and public opinion among societies is stimulated by the fact of the growing number of incidents involving the use of UAVs around the world. For example, drones have been used by criminal organizations – on September 14, 2019, there was an attack on the state-owned refineries of ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, which caused short-term reduction in global crude oil supply by 60% and a short-term increase in oil prices by 10%. In December 2018, the presence of two civilian drones resulted in the closure of Gatwick Airport in the UK to aircraft traffic for 36 hours, causing 1,000 flights to be canceled; in the end only Easy Jet airlines lost more than 15 million pounds as a result of this incident[12]. In November 2019, the results of a public opinion and stakeholder survey on the perception of drone technologies in British society were published in the American periodical “Technology In Society”. The main conclusions from the analysis of data obtained in the form of quantitative research (> 150 questionnaires) lead to many important observations. The analysis shows that the public obtains information about drones mainly from news media as well as films and series, which indicates a low social awareness of citizens. Stakeholders, i.e. drone users, scored significantly higher in terms of knowledge compared to the general public. The actual knowledge of the public matters less than perceived knowledge. Research has shown that the male population has more knowledge about drones and accepts them more in the public space than women. “Drones abused by criminals or terrorists and drones abused to respect privacy”[13] were identified as the highest risk factors. Overall public support for public safety and the use of drones in research is high. The analysis of the results of these studies allows for the conclusion that drones were not well accepted at present, except for applications related to public safety and scientific research. The public perceives drones as a risky technology that directly invades their privacy. Summarizing the results, this study recommends that public and private institutions collaborate to develop mitigation and response strategies to minimize risk. In addition, the public must receive information about these strategies through the mass media and educational institutions. This can help improve the reputation of drones from privacy disruptors towards technology that helps society[14]. A survey of social attitudes in the field of drones, published in 2019 by the global consulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), is based on a survey of public opinion and business leaders about their attitude to drone technology and drone regulations.  It would seem that drones have a very bad reputation in the UK – less than a third (31%) of the surveyed members of the public now have a positive opinion of the technology. The greatest public concerns about commercial drones are misuse (41%), the risk of use by criminals (27%) and the risk of an accident (26%). 78% of respondents want drone operators to be licensed, 70% are not sure if they know who to report a drone abuse to, 70% want drone routes to be recorded in the civil aviation authority’s systems.PwC research has shown that public opposition to drones decreases when aspects of their use become specific, defined, and when the wider benefits of using this technology for social needs are explained. The most popular potential applications of drones were socially significant applications, incl. search for missing persons and rescue operations (87%), identification and tracking of criminals (80%) and support for other rescue operations (84%). Importantly, PwC research shows that public opinion is shifting to the market, as over a third (35%) of business leaders believe that drones are not used in their industry due to negative public opinion, despite the fact that 43% of respondents say that their industry would benefit from the use of drones[15]. Such an approach and open social attitudes influence the generation of space for an extended and more effective application of drone technologies in everyday life. One can risk a thesis that drone manufacturers should take advantage of any situation or need with a positive social perception to “tame” society with this “yet untamed” technology that fits into one of the basic spheres of human needs.
According to numerous social theories, the basic human need is the need to ensure safety for oneself and for their relatives. The issue of security requires addressing the issue of mechanisms regulating the behavior of an individual in difficult situations, situations of danger and uncertainty. A useful context in which to interpret an individual’s operation under threatened conditions is the description and interpretation of personnel security issues. The implementation of an automated and conscious pursuit of satisfying an individual’s safety needs is interpreted in terms of mechanisms aimed at integrating its activities in the individual and social dimensions[16]. The current canons of security are determined by the culture of ideas, shaped in specific civilization conditions. This is done according to the current properties of space and time[17]. However, it is not only about the determinants of direct (physical) threats, but also indirect threats. An important premise in the analysis of factors influencing the safety of an individual is his / her trust in political authority and institutions. It is particularly noticeable that in the era of the pandemic, drone systems began to be almost universally used in public life by state authorities and disposition groups, including:  Polish border services started to use drones, thermal imaging, satellites and other technologies on a mass scale; Scotland has tested and applied the supply of masks to hospitals via drones; certain types of drones have been approved for the supply of medicines and protective equipment in the USA; amusement parks in Europe have decided to disinfect their attractions due to the pandemic by drones.

The pandemic, which is an emergency in itself, has widened the potential field for the development of another danger – the unlawful use of UAVs. There are also frequent fears that the pandemic will pass, and that, for example, tracking systems that have already been introduced will remain. Hong Kong expert D. Phillips, cited earlier, emphasizes that “we currently have no cure or vaccine for COVID-19, so targeting, tracking and testing is the only weapon we have at the moment.[18]” He points out, however, that although many people agree to be tracked in the face of a health threat, if in the future they are tracked by such a system in connection with, for example, a crime or a political demonstration – then they may consider it unethical and too invasive[19]. Therefore, an assumption of a certain bipolarity, duality of the approach to drone technology in the social aspect should be adopted: if technology supports us and allows us to generate specific benefits – we accept it, although if it was to interfere or limit my privacy – then there is a reference to unethical and socially rejected practices of supervisory capitalism.

The exceptionally rapid development of information technology in the last decade has made us think about society in a completely different way. Ubiquitous drones, the possibility of distributed and mass communication, teleworking, newly emerging professions and jobs, cyber terrorism and surveillance through 24-hour monitoring of entire human clusters in the spirit of the expansion of surveillance capitalism are arguments proving that new technologies along with the entire tele-information industry and telemetry, should constitute one of the basic issues and challenges for contemporary social sciences. The actor-network theory (ANT) popularized by Bruno Latour has become an important reference point for the analysis of new technologies and their role in the life of modern man. Have the global pandemic situation and the use of drones to help eliminate its effects caused noticeable changes in social attitudes in this regard? Summarizing the considerations on the impact of new technologies in the form of drones on social attitudes in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, it should be noted that, paradoxically, the COVID pandemic, has become a positive inhibitor of the multifaceted absorption of many new technologies that have appeared in the public space. There is a doubt, however, whether this absorption will be a permanent process, or whether the fact of the pandemic only temporarily affected our social and technological environment. Has the sudden, temporary ubiquity of UAVs contributed to a decrease in uncertainty and a sense of danger to society resulting from the sight of drones hovering in the sky? In the opinion of the authors of this article, unfortunately not. The very essence of the UAV structure, providing a certain amine content to the drone operator, is a factor that still maintains a certain social reluctance in this solution. In the era of widespread automation of control and control systems important from the point of view of state security, it is still possible to relatively easily take control of cybernetic or drone solutions by terrorists or unauthorized persons[20], which still causes a social distance to UAV. According to the authors, the change in social attitudes in this regard will be a long-term process, related to cultural and philosophical changes. Fear and irrational behavior of individuals are a consequence of long-term, spontaneous socialization processes, hence the reception of novelties and innovations is often blocked by society only by emotions that are devoid of the logic of the system and rational social attitude[21]. ” It can be assumed that in the sociological approach to the absorption of new technologies, the following sequence of events is a natural cycle: technique -> innovation -> security -> change of attitudes. According to the theory developed by prof. Zuboff, thanks to changes in social attitudes and further rapid advances in technology, we will live in a society where human behavior is not only monitored by global “architects of reality”, but is also subject to interference from outside forces to influence its shape. Business entities are interested in commercializing the benefits of supervisory capitalism – as evidenced by the Google City construction project – it is supposed to be a fully intelligent city, which is currently being built as part of Toronto, Canada, as a substitute for our future marked by complete transparency and surveillance. “In addition, there will be even greater social inequalities, because there will be extreme asymmetry of knowledge. On the one hand, we will have private business and a narrow clan of database and big data specialists who know and can do more. On the other hand, we will be unaware of who is watching us and why he is doing it.[22]” There is no consensus on an effective and quick remedy that will minimize the fear of surveillance, although one of the conclusions is the need to educate the public and popularize an open discourse of scientific communities in the field of social sciences, business and state services about the limits of surveillance.

 LITERATURE

  1. Aydin B., Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practic, Technology In Society Journal No. 59, 2019
  2. Beck U., The Risk Society. On the way to a different modernity, Warsaw 2004
  3. White Book of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Market, Ministry of Infrastructure, Warsaw 2019
  4. Czajkowski W., Integrative dimension of personal security in difficult situations, Article in the XVIII International Seminar in the series: “Methodology of research on social systems”, May 21, 2020 (online)
  5. Gorzko M., The category of the sense of security in the light of selected sociological theories, Sociological Forum No. 10, 2020
  6. Gurtowski M., Digital arms race in the era of expansion of supervisory capitalism, Sociological Forum No. 10, 2020
  7. Maciejewski Jan, Stochmal M., Ludziejewski Z., Groups available to threats to state security, Publishing House of the University of Wrocław, Wrocław 2016
  8. Maciejewski Jan, Zawartka Monika, Fiodorów Sławomir (ed.), Global and local perspectives of state security, University of Wrocław Publishing House, Wrocław, 2018
  9. Radziewicz-Winnicki Andrzej, Society in transition, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2005
  10. Zuboff S., The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Flight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power, London, 2019

Internet materials:1. Modern War Institute, Swarms of mass destruction: the case fro declaring armed and fully autonomous drone swarms as WMD, published 05/28/2020 www.mwi.usma.edu/Swarms-mass-destruction-case-declaring-armed-fully- autonomous-drone-swarms-wmd / 2. Gazeta Prawna, The pandemic will pass, will the tracking systems stay? The West is considering applications and devices that have hitherto been unthinkable. 07/06/2020, www.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1481786,systemy-sledzenia-koronawirus-aplikacje-roboty.html 3. Sarnacka-Mahoney E., Capitalism of surveillance. Our behavior is not only tracked, but also changed in a certain direction. Interview with Shoshana Zuboff, https://forsal.pl/artykuly/1164703,kapitalizm-inwigilacji-nasze-zachowanie-jest-juz-nie-tylko-sledzone-ale-tez-zmieniane-w-okreslonym-kierunku-wywiad.html  07/07/2019 4. Drone Life https://dronelife.com/2019/06/07/pwc-research-public-perception-a-barrier-to-drone-adoption/

Other works:1. HERTZ Systems internal materials from the webinar “Catalog of risks associated with a drone attack. Does the risk of attack change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic “May 15, 20202. Info Security24, Report: Anti-unmanned aerial vehicle systems, Defence24, Warsaw 20193. PwC Report, Building Trust in Drones, London 2019

[1] E. Sarnacka-Mahoney, Capitalism of Surveillance. Our behavior is not only tracked, but also changed in a certain direction. Interview with Shoshana Zuboff, https://forsal.pl/artykuly/1164703,kapitalizm-inwigilacji-nasze-zachowanie-jest-juz-nie-tylko-sledzone-ale-tez-zmieniane-w-okreslonym-kierunku-wywiad.html  07/07/2019 (access: 24/07/2020)

[2] B. Aydin, Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practic, Technology In Society Journal No. 59, 2019.

        [3] M. Gorzko, The category of the sense of security in the light of selected sociological theories, Sociological Forum No. 10, 2020, pp. 43-45

[4] S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Flight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power, London 2019, pp. 116-118.

[5] E. Sarnacka-Mahoney, Capitalism of Surveillance. Our behavior is not only tracked, but also changed in a certain direction. Interview with Shoshana Zuboff, https://forsal.pl/artykuly/1164703,kapitalizm-inwigilacji-nasze-zachowanie-jest-juz-nie-tylko-sledzone-ale-tez-zmieniane-w-okreslonym-kierunku-wywiad.html 07/07/2019 (access: 24/07/2020)

[6] S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Flight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power, London 2019, p. 479.

               [7] M. Gurtowski, The digital arms race in the era of expansion of surveillance capitalism, Sociological Forum No. 10, 2020, pp. 109-110.

[8] Ibidem, p.111.

               [9] Gazeta Prawna, The pandemic will pass, will the tracking systems stay? The West is considering applications and devices that have hitherto been unthinkable, June 7, 2020, www.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1481786,systemy-sledzenia-koronawirus-aplikacje-roboty.html  [access: June 10-11, 2020]

[10]  Info Security24, Report: Anti-unmanned aerial vehicle systems, Defence24, Warsaw 2019, pp. 5-14.

               [11] J. Maciejewski (ed.), Global and local perspectives of state security, Publishing House of the University of Wrocław, Wrocław, 2018, Article: Drabik K. “The paradox of modernization – security and risk” p. 138.

               [12] HERTZ Systems internal materials from the webinar “Catalog of risks associated with a drone attack. Does the risk of attack change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic?” 15.05.2020.

 

[13] B. Aydin, Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practic, Technology In Society Journal No. 59, 2019.

[14] Ibidem.

[15]Drone Life, https://dronelife.com/2019/06/07/pwc-research-public-perception-a-barrier-to-drone-adoption/ (accessed on 01/08/2020)

               [16] W. Czajkowski, Integrative dimension of personal security in difficult situations, Article in the 18th International Seminar in the series: “Methodology of research on social systems”, May 21, 2020 p. 10.

[17] J. Maciejewski (ed.), Global and Local Perspectives of State Security, Publishing House of the University of Wrocław, Wrocław, 2018, Article: Drabik K. “The Paradox of Modernization – Security and Risk” pp. 138-141.

               [18] Gazeta Prawna, The pandemic will pass, will the tracking systems stay? The West is considering applications and devices that have hitherto been unthinkable. 07/06/2020, www.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1481786,systemy-sledzenia-koronawirus-aplikacje-roboty.html [access: 11/06/2020]

[19] Ibidem

[20] Ibidem, p. 597.

[21]A. Radziewicz-Winnicki, Society in transition, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2005, pp. 36-37.

[22] E. Sarnacka-Mahoney, Capitalism of Surveillance. Our behavior is not only tracked, but also changed in a certain direction. Interview with Shoshana Zuboff, https://forsal.pl/artykuly/1164703,kapitalizm-inwigilacji-nasze-zachowanie-jest-juz-nie-tylko-sledzone-ale-tez-zmieniane-w-okreslonym-kierunku-wywiad.html  07/07/2019 (access: 01/08/2020)

A cura di Jan Maciejewski, Małgorzata Stochmal, Beata Tustanowska 
Traduzione a cura di Jolanta Grebowiec-Baffoni


Rivista scientifica digitale mensile (e-magazine) pubblicata in Legnano dal 2013 – Direttore: Claudio Melillo – Direttore Responsabile: Serena Giglio – Coordinatore: Pierpaolo Grignani – Responsabile di Redazione: Marco Schiariti
a cura del Centro Studi di Economia e Diritto – Ce.S.E.D. Via Padova, 5 – 20025 Legnano (MI) – C.F. 92044830153 – ISSN 2282-3964 Testata registrata presso il Tribunale di Milano al n. 92 del 26 marzo 2013
Contattaci: redazione@economiaediritto.it
Le foto presenti sul sito sono state prese in parte dal web, e quindi valutate di pubblico dominio. Se i soggetti o gli autori fossero contrari alla pubblicazione, non avranno che da segnalarlo. In tal caso provvederemo prontamente alla rimozione.
Seguici anche su Telegram, LinkedIn e Facebook!

NESSUN COMMENTO

Lascia un Commento

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.