In a recent paper, Brett Frischmann and Paul Ohm introduce the idea of “governance seams,” which are frictions and inefficiencies that can be designed into technological systems for policy ends. In this regard, “Governance seams maintain separation and mediate interactions among components of sociotechnical systems and between different parties and contexts” (1117). Their first example is a university’s procedure for anonymous exams. There, a number of different friction points are added to make sure that professors do not know whose exams they are grading: students receive unique identifiers from the registrar and use only these on the exams; they type but do not write answers; once the exams are scored, the registrar matches the numbers back with individual student names; and so forth. The professor will likely not be in the room during the exam, so the university will have to provide a neutral proctor. The exam might also take place in a specified location. There will also be rules and penalties designed to ensure that none of the seams are crossed without permission. Together, these governance seams design the system for fairness, or at least to eliminate one potential source of bias in grading. They’re also pretty inefficient in that they require a bunch of resources be allocated to them, but places with that sort of anonymous grading figure it’s worth it for the fairness bump.
As the paper goes on to argue, such governance seams are ubiquitous and important, because they enable us to design sociotechnical systems to facilitate certain outcomes that might otherwise not happen. That is, seams open a space for governance:
“Seams can enable governance by delineating space, thereby creating the separation necessary to establish legitimate rules and norms and to perform management, oversight, and enforcement. Territorial borders, the physical architecture of a home, anonymous grading systems, CAPTCHAs, passwords, and other authentication mechanisms serve these functions. Seams also serve as a fulcrum for allocating governance power and authority (to insiders, outsiders, or joint mechanisms)” (1129).
They contrast governance seams with other forms of friction by design – speed bumps, for example, govern directly by forcing cars to slow down (1127). Governance seams have various functions. They can signpost a space where governance is occurring, facilitate interoperability between systems (think APIs), regulate flows of information, and increase transparency. Frischmann and Ohm return a couple of times to the transparency point, noting that “a well-designed governance seam can increase transparency by serving as a border checkpoint between two types of activities. Just as border checkpoints provide visibility into cross-border flows of goods and people, governance seams provide a vantage point to observe or measure meaningful information flows” (1130).
Governance seams thus allocate power within technical systems, and can thus be distinguished from other ways of allocating power. The speed bump, for example, exemplifies regulation by what Lawrence Lessig calls “code.” Regulation by code is often invisible – think of all the ways that platform sites modulate their users’ subjectivity without telling them. Frischmann and Ohm’s interest here is in governance, but I think one of their lead examples allows a point about what I’ll call phenomenological seams. Consider their discussion of a house and how its architecture allows numerous points of governance:
““Many governance seams are architectural. The seams arise from the design of built artifacts and environments. A classic example is the home. There is much more to the home than its architecture — the social meaning matters most. Still, the walls, doors, windows, and other physical components constitute a seam between the inside and outside of the home, which affords some privacy through various forms of friction. Windows afford some frictional protection from aural surveillance, while drapes or blinds may be necessary to avoid visual surveillance. Architectural friction can be quite powerful, but it has its limits as a governance mechanism. A door can be opened. More generally, advances in surveillance technology can overcome frictional barriers and erode architectural seams, whether from the outside (e.g., the thermal imaging device in Kyllo v. United States) or from within (e.g., Alexa or other smart home technologies)” (1122).
The interaction between technological artifacts and systems and seams is complex, as the last two examples show. Kyllo was about whether the police needed a warrant to install a thermal imaging device outside of someone’s home, with an aim to detecting the presence of basement lamps used to grow marijuana. Justice Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that a warrant was needed, but substantially because thermal imaging devices were not in widespread use. The Alexa example shows the permeability of all parts of the home to technology. Importantly, these technologies can interact, as in the case of the infamous Burger King TV ad that prompted Google Nest to search for the Whopper. One of the effects of all these interactions is the development and evolution of social norms. Frischmann and Ohm write:
“By establishing a functional and socially recognized seam, the physical architecture of a home enables other forms of governance, including social norms and laws. For example, visitors generally abide by social conventions, such as knocking on the front door or ringing a doorbell upon arrival, and even with a search warrant, the law requires police officers to knock and announce themselves. In the absence of a door, neither the social norm nor legal rule would be operational” (1122-3).
Thus for the setup. Next time I’ll actually introduce the idea of phenomenological seams.
Recent Comments