This chapter examines the ethical, deontological, and legal dimensions of the Connect installation. It evaluates the project's impact on public transport users, ensuring that the design choices align with principles of privacy, inclusivity, and social responsibility.

It covers:

• Engineering Ethics: An analysis of passenger interaction and consent, focusing on data privacy (the non-collection of personal data in Phase 1 versus audio storage in Phase 2) and accessibility concerns for vulnerable, disabled, or sensory-sensitive users.
• Sales and Marketing Ethics: An evaluation of the project's funding models (public interest versus commercial sponsorship), emphasizing the need for transparency and the protection of user-generated content from commercial exploitation.
• Environmental Ethics: A reflection on the ecological footprint of the chosen hardware and infrastructure, addressing the use of biodegradable PLA, the management of electronic waste, and the energy consumption of web hosting.
• Liability: A discussion on the distribution of responsibility regarding physical and electrical safety in a high-traffic transit environment, as well as the accountability for moderating potentially harmful user-generated audio content.
• Summary: The final conclusions detailing the specific design, material, and technical choices implemented by the team to uphold these ethical standards.

  6.2 Engineering Ethics

  • Passengers are informed about the installation via a notice on the carriage door - is that enough

Phase 1:

• passengers choose whether to grab the handrail
• no personal data is collected — velostat only detects pressure, not who is pressing
• the system does not store, transmit, or log any data

Accessibility:

• the installation relies on grabbing a handrail — does it exclude passengers who don't or can't?
• sensitive users: how to not exclude light sensitive users
• how to make passengers aware of whats happening so they don’t expereience confusion: elderly, people with cognitive issues, vision impaired users

Phase 2:

• voice messages are user-generated and voluntarily submitted
• the platform stores audio content — who owns it, who has access, how long is it kept?
• reflective questions prompt personal sharing — is there a risk of emotional manipulation or false sense of safety?

Two potential customer types with different ethical implications:

Municipality, metro company
Public interest framing, supporting social cohesion — relatively unproblematic ethically
Commercial sponsor
Raises questions about whose interests the installation serves — does a sponsor's branding or agenda conflict with the project's message?

Phase 1:

• no user data is collected, so commercial exploitation of data is not possible — this is an ethical strength worth stating

Phase 2:

• voice messages are personal user content — a commercial sponsor having access to or ownership of this data would be ethically problematic and needs to be addressed

Transparency

• Passengers should know who is behind the installation and whether it is commercially sponsored — the carriage door notice becomes relevant here too
• Risk of the installation being used as a marketing vehicle rather than a genuine public art piece — how does the team ensure the original intent is preserved regardless of who funds it?

• PLA enclosure is biodegradable
• Electronic components (ESP32, WS2812B LEDs) are standard consumer electronics — e-waste is a real concern even if not fully resolved
  

Phase 2: the web platform requires server infrastructure — minor but worth acknowledging (energy use, hosting)

Phase 1: who is responsible if something fails electrically or physically in a public space? Safety standards relevant to public transport (electrical safety, passenger contact with hardware)
Phase 2: who is liable for the content of voice messages? Harmful, offensive, or distressing content is a real risk The team as designers vs. the metro operator as host — where does responsibility sit?

Provide here the conclusions of this chapter and make the bridge to the next chapter.

Based on this ethical and deontological analysis, the team chose <specify here the design, technique(s) material(s), component(s)> for the following <specify here the relevant ethics-related reasons>.
Consequently, the team decided to design a solution with the following <specify here the features added for ethical reasons>.