skip to main content
research-article

Piracy and the Impaired Cyborg: Assistive Technologies, Accessibility, and Access

Published:05 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper examines software piracy in the Global South from an accessibility lens, using the bio-technical metaphor of the 'cyborg.' Drawing on qualitative interviews with people with visual impairment (VI) from India and Peru, the paper interrogates the intimate relationships that users have with assistive technologies (ATs). It outlines the effectiveness of ATs in allowing users to actively control and shape their own lives and identities, and describes the various modalities that regulate the human body, technology, and human body-technology linkages. The paper argues that software piracy, when looked through the lens of the 'cyborg,' is an act of self-making that is motivated by a desire to gain autonomy and independence, i.e., it can be understood as a way to overcome the barriers that undermine access to the technological self. Further, software piracy allows a shift in the distribution of power from those who control and regulate the assistive technologies to the cyborgs themselves.

References

  1. Aleksandra Łukaszewicz Alcaraz. 2019. Cyborg Persons or Selves.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Elisabet Apelmo. 2012. Falling in love with a wheelchair: enabling/disabling technologies. Sport in society, Vol. 15, 3 (2012), 399--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anne Marie Balsamo et almbox. 1996. Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women .Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paul Belleflamme and Martin Peitz. 2014. Digital piracy. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yochai Benkler. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom.Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cynthia L Bennett, Keting Cen, Katherine M Steele, and Daniela K Rosner. 2016. An intimate laboratory? Prostheses as a tool for experimenting with identity and normalcy. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1745--1756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cynthia L Bennett, Abigale Stangl, Alexa F Siu, and Joshua A Miele. 2019. Making Nonvisually: Lessons from the Field. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 279--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stacy M Branham and Shaun K Kane. 2015. The invisible work of accessibility: how blind employees manage accessibility in mixed-ability workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. 163--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robin N Brewer and Vaishnav Kameswaran. 2019. Understanding trust, transportation, and accessibility through ridesharing. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lauren M Britton and Bryan Semaan. 2017. Manifesting the cyborg through techno-body modification: From human-computer interaction to integration. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2499--2510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Erin Buehler, Stacy Branham, Abdullah Ali, Jeremy J Chang, Megan Kelly Hofmann, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K Kane. 2015. Sharing is caring: Assistive technology designs on thingiverse. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 525--534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Priyank Chandra. 2016. Order in the warez scene: explaining an underground virtual community with the CPR framework. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 372--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Priyank Chandra and Jasmine Jones. 2015. Assistive technologies and autonomy in a cyborg world. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. ACM, 31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Samir Chopra and S Dexter. 2007. Free software and the political philosophy of the cyborg world. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, Vol. 37, 2 (2007), 41--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Roger Clarke. 2010. Cyborg rights. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society. IEEE, 9--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Manfred E Clynes and Nathan S Kline. 1995. Cyborgs and space. The cyborg handbook (1995), 29--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ian Condry. 2004. Cultures of music piracy: An ethnographic comparison of the US and Japan. International journal of cultural studies, Vol. 7, 3 (2004), 343--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Maitraye Das, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2020. Weaving by touch: A case analysis of accessible making. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Robert M Davison. 2012. The privacy rights of cyborgs. Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 27, 4 (2012), 324--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Alexander S Dent. 2012. Piracy, circulatory legitimacy, and neoliberal subjectivity in Brazil. Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 27, 1 (2012), 28--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kerry Dobransky and Eszter Hargittai. 2006. The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 9, 3 (2006), 313--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Arne H Eide and Tone Øderud. 2009. Assistive technology in low-income countries. In Disability & international development. Springer, 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Katie Ellis and Mike Kent. 2011. Disability and new media. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Heather A Faucett, Kate E Ringland, Amanda LL Cullen, and Gillian R Hayes. 2017. (In) visibility in disability and assistive technology. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), Vol. 10, 4 (2017), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Laura Forlano. 2016. Decentering the human in the design of collaborative cities. Design Issues, Vol. 32, 3 (2016), 42--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Alexandre Apsan Frediani. 2010. Sen's Capability Approach as a framework to the practice of development. Development in practice, Vol. 20, 2 (2010), 173--187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Peter ES Freund. 2004. Civilised bodies redux: seams in the cyborg. Social Theory & Health, Vol. 2, 3 (2004), 273--289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Barbara E Gibson, Franco A Carnevale, and Gillian King. 2012. 'This is my way': reimagining disability, in/dependence and interconnectedness of persons and assistive technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 34, 22 (2012), 1894--1899.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Tarleton Gillespie. 2009. Wired Shut, Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Antonio Gramsci. 2011. Prison Notebooks Volume 2. Vol. 2. Columbia University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chris Hables Gray. 2000. Cyborg citizen: Politics in the posthuman age .Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Chris Hables Gray, Heidi J Figueroa-Sarriera, and Steven Mentor. 1995. The Cyborg Handbook. (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonathan W Gray. 2016. 'Why Couldn't You Let Me Die??: Cyborg, Social Death, and Narratives of Black Disability. In Disability in Comic Books and Graphic Narratives. Springer, 125--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. David J Gunkel. 2003. Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New media & society, Vol. 5, 4 (2003), 499--522.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin Heidegger. 1996. Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. SUNY press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. P David Howe. 2011. Cyborg and supercrip: The Paralympics technology and the (dis) empowerment of disabled athletes. Sociology, Vol. 45, 5 (2011), 868--882.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Amy Hurst and Jasmine Tobias. 2011. Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. 11--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. John Jones, Catherine Gouge, and Mariah Crilley. 2017. Design principles for health wearables. Communication Design Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, 2 (2017), 40--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Vaishnav Kameswaran, Jatin Gupta, Joyojeet Pal, Sile O'Modhrain, Tiffany C Veinot, Robin Brewer, Aakanksha Parameshwar, and Jacki O'Neill. 2018. 'We can go anywhere' Understanding Independence through a Case Study of Ride-hailing Use by People with Visual Impairments in metropolitan India. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, CSCW (2018), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Nixon K Kariithi. 2011. Is the devil in the data? A literature review of piracy around the world. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 14, 2 (2011), 133--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Krista Kennedy. 2018. Designing for human-machine collaboration: smart hearing aids as wearable technologies. Communication Design Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, 4 (2018), 40--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Bert-Jaap Koops, Mireille Hildebrandt, and David-Olivier Jaquet-Chiffelle. 2010. Bridging the accountability gap: Rights for new entities in the information society. Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., Vol. 11 (2010), 497.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Neha Kumar and Nimmi Rangaswamy. 2013. The mobile media actor-network in urban India. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1989--1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Lawrence Lessig. 2009. Code: And other laws of cyberspace.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawrence Liang. 2005. Porous legalities and avenues of participation. Sarai reader, Vol. 5, 1 (2005), 6--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramon Lobato and Julian Thomas. 2018. The informal media economy. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. MacKinnon Richard. 2017. The Cyborg Bill of Rights v1.0 / Boing Boing. https://boingboing.net/2017/02/01/the-cyborg-bill-of-rights-v1-0.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Ted McCarthy, Joyojeet Pal, and Edward Cutrell. 2013. The 'voice' has it: screen reader adoption and switching behavior among vision impaired persons in India. Assistive Technology, Vol. 25, 4 (2013), 222--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Helen Meekosha and Karen Soldatic. 2011. Human rights and the global South: The case of disability. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32, 8 (2011), 1383--1397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Janis Lena Meissner, John Vines, Janice McLaughlin, Thomas Nappey, Jekaterina Maksimova, and Peter Wright. 2017. Do-it-yourself empowerment as experienced by novice makers with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 1053--1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ingunn Moser. 2000. Against normalisation: subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as culture, Vol. 9, 2 (2000), 201--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruth Neubauer. 2019. Design Thinking: From Individual Thinking Towards a Technohuman Reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-Demos and Posters. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Mike Oliver. 1989. Disability and dependency: A creation of industrial societies. Disability and dependency (1989), 6--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Michael J Oliver. 1999. Capitalism, disability, and ideology: A materialist critique of the. A quarter-century of normalization and social role valorization: Evolution and impact (1999), 163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. World Health Organization et almbox. 2011. World report on disability 2011. World Health Organization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Jo Orsatti, Ella Hafermalz, and Dirk S Hovorka. 2016. Rethinking," Rethinking: Post-Human Boundaries" Pre-given or Performed? ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 47, 4 (2016), 41--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Joyojeet Pal, Tawfiq Ammari, Ramaswami Mahalingam, Ana Maria Huaita Alfaro, and Meera Lakshmanan. 2013. Marginality, aspiration and accessibility in ICTD. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development: Full Papers-Volume 1. 68--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Joyojeet Pal and Meera Lakshmanan. 2012. Assistive technology and the employment of people with vision impairments in India. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. 307--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Joyojeet Pal, Manas Pradhan, Mihir Shah, and Rakesh Babu. 2011a. Assistive technology for vision-impairments: anagenda for the ICTD community. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web. ACM, 513--522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Joyojeet Pal, Ugo Vallauri, and Victor Tsaran. 2011b. Low-cost assistive technology in the developing world: a research agenda for information schools. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference. ACM, 459--465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Joyojeet Pal, Anjali Vartak, Vrutti Vyas, Saikat Chatterjee, Nektarios Paisios, and Rahul Cherian. 2010. A ratification of means: International law and assistive technology in the developing world. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Joyojeet Pal, Anandhi Viswanathan, Priyank Chandra, Anisha Nazareth, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Hariharan Subramonyam, Aditya Johri, Mark S Ackerman, and Sile O'Modhrain. 2017. Agency in assistive technology adoption: Visual impairment and smartphone use in Bangalore. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 5929--5940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Joyojeet Pal, Anandhi Viswanathan, and Ji-Hye Song. 2016. Smartphone adoption drivers and challenges in urban living: Cases from Seoul and Bangalore. In Proceedings of the 8th Indian Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 24--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Alyson Patsavas. 2012. Suffering Cyborgs: Inhuman Pain, Human Subjects . Ph.D. Dissertation. MA thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Kavita Philip. 2005. What is a technological author? The pirate function and intellectual property. Postcolonial Studies, Vol. 8, 2 (2005), 199--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Halley P Profita, Abigale Stangl, Laura Matuszewska, Sigrunn Sky, and Shaun K Kane. 2016. Nothing to hide: aesthetic customization of hearing aids and cochlear implants in an online community. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 219--227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Gowri Ramachandran. 2009. Against the right to bodily integrity: of cyborgs and human rights. Denv. UL Rev., Vol. 87 (2009), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Neil Ramiller. 2016. New technology and the post-human self: Rethinking appropriation and resistance. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 47, 4 (2016), 23--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Donna Reeve. 2012. Cyborgs, cripples and iCrip: Reflections on the contribution of Haraway to disability studies. In Disability and Social Theory. Springer, 91--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro. 2012. Globalization from Below and the non Hegemonic Word-System. G. Mathews, G. Lins Ribeiro y C. Alba Vega, Globalization from Below: The World's Other Economy, Londres, Routdledge (2012), 221--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Jacquie Ripat and Roberta Woodgate. 2011. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, Vol. 6, 2 (2011), 87--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Emma J Rose and Rebecca Walton. 2015. Factors to actors: Implications of posthumanism for social justice work. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on the Design of Communication. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Marcia J Scherer. 1996. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and rehabilitation, Vol. 18, 9 (1996), 439--448.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Amartya Sen. 2001. Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 705--714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O Wobbrock. 2016. Self-conscious or self-confident? A diary study conceptualizing the social accessibility of assistive technology. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), Vol. 8, 2 (2016), 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Tobin Siebers. 2008. Disability theory .University of Michigan Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Karin Slegers, Kristel Kouwenberg, Tereza Louvc ova, and Ramon Daniels. 2020. Makers in Healthcare: The Role of Occupational Therapists in the Design of DIY Assistive Technology. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Nancy Smith, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2017. Designing for cohabitation: Naturecultures, hybrids, and decentering the human in design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1714--1725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Thomas N Smyth, Satish Kumar, Indrani Medhi, and Kentaro Toyama. 2010. Where there's a will there's a way: mobile media sharing in urban india. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 753--762.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Andrew C Sparkes, James Brighton, and Kay Inckle. 2018. 'It'sa part of me': an ethnographic exploration of becoming a disabled sporting cyborg following spinal cord injury. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, Vol. 10, 2 (2018), 151--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Ravi Sundaram. 2009. Pirate modernity: Delhi's media urbanism. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Linnet Taylor. 2016. From zero to hero: How zero-rating became a debate about human rights. IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 20, 4 (2016), 79--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Maria Rosalia Vicente and Ana Jesus Lopez. 2010. A multidimensional analysis of the disability digital divide: Some evidence for Internet use. The Information Society, Vol. 26, 1 (2010), 48--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Shujen Wang. 2003. Recontextualizing copyright: Piracy, Hollywood, the state, and globalization. Cinema Journal (2003), 25--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Piracy and the Impaired Cyborg: Assistive Technologies, Accessibility, and Access

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
          Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 4, Issue CSCW3
          CSCW
          December 2020
          1825 pages
          EISSN:2573-0142
          DOI:10.1145/3446568
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 5 January 2021
          Published in pacmhci Volume 4, Issue CSCW3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader