AUTHOR
Nicolas Mangos and Maz Demosthenous

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses recent work that has considered customizing web sites to fit various specific country cultures. The importance of cultural differences in web site designing is not new and has been investigated using the Hostede approach where some researchers concentrated on masculinity versus femininity where countries are differentiated by their gender roles (Dormann and Chisalita, 2002). Others have used the complete five dimensions of Hofstede in there analysis of cultural issues in web site redesign which include: long-term versus short term orientation; femininity versus masculinity power-distance; collectivism versus individualism and uncertainty avoidance (Marcus and Gould, 2000; Sheridan, 2002).

Whilst the Hofstede model has proven useful in various social science disciplinary research, it does have its limitations if solely relied upon to reflect cultural barriers. The current paper suggests that going beyond the convenience of Hofstede model may provide additional and useful insights into cultural barriers in web site designing. An eCuturation model is proposed which includes the Hofstede model but only as one part of the cultural interface elements.

The major contribution of the paper is the development of an eCulturation model. Where eCulturation refers to the process that facilitates culturally sensitive Web site design. The idea is to minimize cultural barriers to effective online global communication. The model developed in this paper identifies, classifies and conceptualises the factors that may contribute to cultural barriers by drawing on research that has described and empirically tested these factors. In developing the eCulturation model, cultural components are conveniently divided into four major cultural components, which include customs, traditions, mores, and values (refer to eCulturation figure attached). The next level of the model identifies the cultural interface elements that emanate from the cultural components. The ten cultural interface elements include: language, colour, symbols, form, look and feel, gestures, credit card acceptance, image/advertising, zip codes, and Hofstede’s five dimensions. It is these ten elements that can have an important impact on web site design but are not contained in any known holistic web-site design model.

Interestingly zip codes are country specific, for instance in Australia and Hong Kong there are postcodes which do not fit the space and nature of an international zip code response to an internet prompt on the screen, so in this instance there is a lost response. Therefore the postcode is not the traditional code used by other countries, which makes the zip code traditional, leading to a cultural problem of country identity when responding via the web cite. In this way the determination of geography implies cultural elements. It can also be categorised as “culture intertwined with the use of technology” (Ulfelder , page 3, 2000).

The proposed model positions web design at the centre and that this design needs to adapt to a select number of cultural interface elements which are reflective of cultural components of the particular country in question (refer to figure of model attached). The proposed model whilst appearing to be all encompassing can still be used to help focus on those cultural elements that are characteristic of the particular country in question. It is all too simplistic to apply a relatively standard approach to web site design from an economic rationale point of view. To help avoid cultural communication problems, web sites should be designed to reflect customs, traditions, mores and values of local culture. For each country these issues will have differences and similarities. The identification of these similarities and differences may be enhanced by using the eCulturation model developed in this paper

The results of this explanatory study, provides evidence of the need to localise web sites according to the country you target. There is an argument that suggests that there is a need to adapt web sites to each country to make customers feel at home with the site. On the other hand there is a contrary argument that you can standardise the majority of the elements. For instance Levitt (1983) seminal paper on globalisation refers to consumer convergence and that there is one world one product suggestive of a standard approach to global business. Through the process of eCulturation one can safely standardise where cultural factors/ elements are common to countries and adopt to those that are different.

Furthermore, this web site redesign can be achieved and refined through validation by local partners on a global level. In the globalisation debate where it is suggested that the optimal position is to standardise where you can and localise where necessary. The proposed model can be effectively used to differentiate what may be standardised and alternatively what has to be localised in particularly using the cultural interface elements. The myth of globalisation suggests that you really need to be culturally sensitive even though there do appear pockets of standardisation in global business.

Figure above is a diagrammatic representation of the proposed eCulturation model.

Where Cultural Components include: customs, traditions, mores and values

Where Cultural Interface Elements include: language, colour, symbols, form, look andfeel, gestures, credit card acceptance, image/advertising, zip codes and includes Hofstede’s five dimensions.

The outer circle is not an exhaustive list of interface elements but can accommodate other specific cultural issues pertaining to specific country characteristics. The eCulturation model is assumed to be flexible enough as to capture most relevant interface elements that are identified as relevant cultural barriers to effective web site communication and implementation.

AUTHOR
B R Mandre, C G Aher, D V Patil, Atulchandra Kulkarni

ABSTRACT

The information technology stands for the technology in making the information available for the people. It itself gives the freedom of information. But total freedom of information may raise some serious issues in the information society. In spite of freedom of information the most needed thing is the privacy of information. This paper describes both the aspects of the information; it’s consequence, need, reality and issues in balancing both of them.

The unification of information technology, telecommunications and communication technologies has transformed the whole world into an information society making the whole world as if it is a global village. The each and everything in this information society is on the fingertips of all the people irrespective of their time zone, geographic location and country. The technology has made a big impact on the accessibility of information. Due to the information technology, the society has changed in very complex manner. It will be a challenging task to discover impact of technology on privacy and freedom of information.

This paper describes the privacy, freedom of information and ethical issues related to the information usage. As such, both are the very important aspect of the information. It focuses on the various issues related to the privacy and freedom of information, responsibilities and influence of the information technology on each of these.

Privacy of information is a very important aspect about an individual or an organization. It protects some specific information about an individual or an organization from being public. This is the factor which should be given due consideration in this information society. As such, privacy is an important factor in this competitive and borderless information world.

Privacy and freedom of information are exactly opposite ends of the aspects of the information. It can be examined by making a comparison of privacy of information versus the freedom of information.

Privacy stands for the needs of the individuals in protecting some information. While, the freedom of information stands for the demand of the society in getting the information. The conflict fires up when both these overlap.

These aspects can be studied in detail by concentrating on following main issues. First is how much information of an individual other people may need to access. Second is how much one should have access to his/her own private information that other people hold. Another is how much access one should have to public information.

The Privacy stands for the interest that individuals have in sustaining personal information free from interference by other people and organizations. The freedom of information stands for the interest that people in society in having the information about an individual, an organization or about a process freely.

Information Privacy is the interest an individual has in controlling, or at least significantly influencing, the handling of data about themselves. Privacy Protection is a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests.

Many software companies collect the personal data from the user while installing or downloading the software. This data may be misused in the information society. The threats of hacking makes it mandatory to give attention to the privacy issues.

Authors discuss about the issues in protection from the bulk mails and the email from unknown people. It also discuss about the privacy issues in other related activities on the Internet.

This paper discusses the various issues related to the privacy, freedom of information, privacy protection and information society. It focuses on how the information society is threatened from privacy issues.

This paper gives in depth coverage of the impact of information technology on the privacy issues, freedom of information, advantages, threats, opportunities, effect on it’s stakeholders and focuses on the directions in which the privacy should be protected in information society.

AUTHOR
Fillia Makedon, C.B. Owen, C. Sudborough, S. Kapidakis, P. Gloor, C. Heckman, J. Ford, J. Pearlman

ABSTRACT

Cases where the failure to share information places humans or property at risk present an ethical dilemma: the risk of harm supports ethical arguments for less restrictive information sharing, while privacy and ownership concerns support ethical arguments for more restrictive information sharing. This paper considers technical means to address this ethical dilemma in the context of a new data-sharing framework called SCENS (Makedon et al. 2003, Ye et al. 2003) based on metadata libraries (Makedon et al. 2002).

The SCENS approach uses negotiation technologies to establish conditions for information sharing, allowing for sharing that would not be possible otherwise. The negotiation system enables communication and cooperation as it brokers agreements from sharing parties that determine who, what, how and for how long there is access to the shared information. Case studies from four domains are analyzed to examine similarities and differences. The central thesis of the paper is that SCENS can provide an appropriate means for easing, and possibly resolving, the ethical dilemma of data sharing under risk.

Ethical issues relative to information sharing often arise because available information can be used in an unplanned way or without the consent of the information owner. Indeed, significant legislation has been passed that codifies these ethical principles into law. However, considering only the viewpoint of data owners ignores the ethical issues introduced when a risk exists that data sharing could alleviate. In these cases, sharing of information may be needed to solve a problem involving the safety or well-being of humans or property.

In this paper we analyze cases in the context of four domains: medicine, social services, e-government, and international security. We argue that well-meaning but poorly-crafted laws that consider only the negative effects of information sharing, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA 1996) in the United States, often put individuals at risk. We consider risks such as terrorism that demonstrate the hazards of not facilitating the sharing of information across government agencies. We then outline a negotiation approach based on determining restrictions and stipulations on the use of data on a case-by-case basis.

Case studies in four domains

1. Medical

Recent HIPAA restrictions greatly hinder data sharing capabilities among authorized medical clinicians and researchers. For example, medical test results may be unavailable to a clinical specialist even when an emergency exists, such as a decision whether to operate on a patient or not. In this case, the desire to protect patient’s data from misuse may run counter to the needs of the patient.

2. Social services

Social services manage situations such as mental health, poverty, alcoholism, and child abuse. The data may include psychological observations, performance tests, or brain scans, and due to legitimate concerns about privacy and the sensitivity of individual records, different institutions rarely make these available except on a case-by-case basis. Thus, although sharing in this domain may dramatically improve the level and quality of care by cutting costs, helping research, and aiding funding efforts, it is currently very difficult to arrange due to the effort required for each attempt to gain authorization for access.

3. E-government

The new electronic communication infrastructure known as “e-government” has made many government services accessible through electronic interfaces, both for the public and for internal government affairs. E-government can offer around-the-clock access, transparency, accountability, up-to-date information, and other benefits. To be fully efficient in such a system, different government agencies must be willing to share their data and analyses of these data; however, concerns about data security and acknowledgement of effort often hamper cooperation.

4. International security

International security requires preparedness for current and emerging risks. Security organizations face difficult challenges overcoming cultural barriers and deriving knowledge from the assimilation of diverse information quickly and accurately. As the world becomes more crowded, complex, and interconnected, international security agencies operating in isolation are hampered in their efforts to monitor and assess security risks. However, as in the case of e-government, cooperation between parties is hampered when the benefits of making contributions are difficult to perceive.

SCENS sharing approach

We believe that a technological solution can be used to attack the ethical dilemma between satisfying concerns about security, ownership, and privacy and the perceived need to provide access to data needed to combat risks. Key to deciding on an ethical information sharing approach is to involve the people who provide and use the information in a negotiation on how it may be used. To address privacy concerns, people can consent on the use of personal information as part of the negotiated conditions: this can include determining what part of the information will be available for use in each case, in which cases information will be available, and who will be allowed to make use of the information (or what conditions the user of the information will satisfy). An information sharing system must include appropriate incentives for both information owners and information users.

A negotiation-based mechanism of communication and cooperation
At Dartmouth we are building SCENS: Secure Content Exchange Negotiation System. SCENS automates the process of reaching agreement between two or more parties as it documents the conditions under which exchange or sharing of information is to take place. These conditions can be usage requirements, such as limitations on duration, or specification of the persons or groups who can be involved in information sharing. SCENS also supports “group negotiation” useful for “distributed decision making”. Group negotiation sets conditions that a critical mass of users must agree upon, and allows individual negotiations to succeed only if many contracts with similar terms reach agreement.

REFERENCES

U.S. Public Law 104-191. August 21, 1996. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, subtitle F: Administrative Simplification.

Makedon F., Ford J. C., Shen L., Steinberg T., Saykin A. J., Wishart H. A., and Kapadakis S. 2002. “MetaDL: A Digital Library of Metadata for Sensitive or Complex Research Data,” presented at European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL2002), Rome, Italy.

Makedon F., Kapadakis S., Steinberg T., Ye S., and Shen L. 2003. “Data brokers: Building collections through automated negotiation,” Dartmouth College Computer Science Department, Hanover, NH, Technical Report DEVLAB-SCENS-03-02, March 2003.

Ye S., Makedon F., Steinberg T., Shen L., Ford J., Wang Y., Zhao Y., and Kapidakis S. 2003. “SCENS: A system for the mediated sharing of sensitive data,” presented at Third ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Houston, TX.

AUTHOR
Peter Madsen

ABSTRACT

Digital Fluency is the title of a project that has recently revised Carnegie Mellon University’s Computer Skills Workshop to integrate computer ethics topics with those dealing with competent computer use. The overall goal of the project is to make students aware of their responsibilities as citizens of our campus and of the wider information society beyond. This year the ethics module treated the problems of P2P file sharing and Internet plagiarism. In this plenary session there will be a report on the planning, design and development phases of the project, a demonstration of the online materials used in the ethics module including two web-based guided inquiries, and a discussion of its hybrid delivery system.

AUTHOR
Richard Lucas

ABSTRACT

“I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that”

Is it possible or even desirable for Autonomous Software Agents (ASAs) to be socially responsible? Since it is usually agreed that to be socially responsible implies a sense of morality some steps towards answering this large question can be taken by asking the smaller questions; ought and can ASAs be ethical? These questions I will answer in this paper.

There are two claims and a discussion resulting from these claims in this paper.

The two claims are: Firstly, we ought to demand that an ASA be morally responsible and secondly, ASAs, currently, are not morally responsible. That these claims are at odds leads to the discussion of how the issues provide a challenge for the citizen of the Information Society

The first claim
This claim stems from the commonplace observation that we are relinquishing more and more control of our lives to computer-controlled technology (ie intensive-care units, autopilots, and the like). The consequence of this relinquishing is that we are taking less and less active part in decisions which have moral import (Do I crash into a building or a cornfield?).

Should we do this? That is to say, ought we to consider more carefully the degree to which we give computers effective control over morally charged parts of our lives and why? This further leads to questions such as: What moral controls ought to be built into computers? and What does this mean for our notions of moral responsibility? The origin and implication of these questions is explored in this paper. These matters will form the basis of an examination of how the issues provide a challenge for the citizen of the Information Society, that is why it matters that ASAs are being used to do things for people.

The second claim
I do not make the strong assertion that it is not possible for any ASA to be morally responsible but rather the more modest one that, by way of example, at least two attempts to imbue ASAs with morals fail.

To substantiate the second claim I will use two models namely, Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics and the BDI Model of Software Agency.

For the 3 Laws of Robotics, I will use the example of the September 11 disaster to examine the effectiveness of such a computer. Would, on September 11, an autonomous moral computer have resulted in better consequences, where thousands of workers and passengers might not have died? It seems that some kind of computer control, moral computer control, would be just the thing in situations like this. I will show that this Æ could be circumvented. All three laws, in this example, are either easily bypassed or are potentially trapped in a deep if not infinite regression of conditions and exceptions.

For the BDI model of software agency, I will show that it flounders conceptually. I will examine the AI field’s (or at least that part which proposes ASAs) conception of autonomy but will concentrate especially on their conceptions of belief, desire, and intention and show that the uses and definitions (implied and explicit) for these are sometimes contradictory, at other times confusing, but always short of any reasonable persons expectations of how these terms ought to be used, especially in moral discourse.

The failure of these examples leads to the suspicion that the problems which undercut them lie deep. Deep in the nature of: the sorts of beings that can be moral, moral theories, and the notions of responsibility and control. These conclusions also lead to the same place as those of the first claim; what are the challenges and why it matters that ASAs are being used to do things for people.

Progress

If these failed attempts are symptomatic of the enterprise as a whole then we ought to be lead to: a) reexamine the first claim, b) examine what the current (moral) state of computers means for us, c) examine what is possible (morally speaking) for ASAs, and d) develop a preliminary sketch for a possible typology for assessing moral theories to see if they that would be appropriate for ASAs.

This paper discusses a) and b), but not c) and d). As a portent to future papers, c) and d) lead to the idea of a classification of moral theories that would be appropriate for ASA’s and a typology of such theories. The classification of such possible moral theories I have called Artificial Ethics (Æ). These are not to be confused with Danielson’s Artificial Morality, though there may very well be theories which fall into both camps. I point to the work of Coleman on Kantian computers and, Van den Hoven and Lokhorst on deontic logics as possible candidates for inclusion in the Æ schema.

Concluding remarks

Perhaps the expectations implied by merely asking the opening question is setting the bar too high; demanding too much of the entities that are, by default, taking control and responsibility. But, it seems that what is being asked of computers is, and, ought to be, no more demanding than what we would ask of people. What would be the point of making the demands lower for computers than people? The answer to this questions seems to imply that accepting less in the way of moralizing is to create a new class, morally constrained entities. Making the standards higher for computers than people, while initially seeming attractive is also problematic. Just how high do we make any such standards and, are we risking creating moral superiors and perchance, moral saints? This, incidentally, is what futurists such as (Warwick, 2000) and (Moravec, 1999) predict, encourage, indeed embrace.

AUTHOR
Tomas A. Lipinski

ABSTRACT

Recent developments in the United States, a jurisdiction heretofore considered vesting its citizens with broad array of free speech rights, including the right to speak and to receive information and its concomitant right to read has undergone challenge in the past two years. The traditional loci for the exercise of these rights for many citizens, the library, the bookstore or newsstand, is now subject to scrutiny by the government and other plaintiffs. This is occurring not only in traditional physical spaces but also in virtual spaces. Three areas are discussed: the use of subpoena powers by aggrieved third parties to ascertain the identity of anonymous speakers on the Internet, the acquisition of online bookstore customers purchase records by law enforcement agencies, and intrusion into reading habits of library patrons by the USA PATRIOT Act and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA).

The prior work of the author discussing anonymous speech on the Internet and the use of subpoena powers by aggrieved third parties¹ is briefly discussed and updated to included recent developments concerning copyright owners attempts to ascertain the identity of potential defendants.² Furthermore, the impact of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) efforts to control the copyright infringement occurring on college campuses is also discussed either through third party subpoena or the enlistment of the educational institution in monitoring traffic on its computer networks is assessed. ³

Next, the implications of the Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thorton, 2002 Colo. LEXIS 269 (Sup. Ct 2002). While the Colorado Supreme Court preserved the rights of online bookstore customers when it determined that the Colorado constitution offered a source of broader privacy protection than did the U.S. Fourth Amendment, the case is significant for two reasons nonetheless. First, it demonstrates the patterns that law enforcement agencies use when investigating reading habits vis-à-vis purchase histories of suspects. Second, the result of the case is likely singular as many state high courts may be reluctant to look to its own constitution as similar cases arise. This might occur of one of two reasons: judicial restraint and underdeveloped body of precedent.

Finally, the reading habits of public library patrons are most impacted by two recent pieces of federal legislation. First, the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. American Library Association, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4799 (2003), upholding its provisions requires that public libraries, as a condition of receipt of federal funding, to place filters on computers with Internet access with result that many patrons will have access to far limited array of material. Moreover, the provisions in CIPA that allow libraries to “turn-off” the filter can only be made in response to a patron request. In other words patrons must first ask before they may access constitutionally protected material.

Most pernicious is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001⁴ or USA PATRIOT Act or the PATRIOT for short, a complex and detailed piece of legislation, amending dozens of federal statutes. In general, PATRIOT relaxes, so to speak, the standards under which surveillance activities may be undertaken in the name of thwarting domestic terrorism. For example, under PATRIOT section 218, amending the FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1804) an application for surveillance is now available if the federal investigator demonstrates that “a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information.” The pre-PATRIOT standard required that law enforcement demonstrate that the “sole or main purpose” of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence information; this “lessening the burden of proof” is subtle but no less significant. ⁵ “Considering the fact that the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] has only turned down one surveillance application since its inception, it becomes even more likely that the court will authorize all forthcoming applications under this more lenient standard.”⁶

The most controversial section, at least for library advocates, is section 215, which appears ominous in its clear application to the library environment as it authorizes the Director of the FBI or his or her designee to “make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” “Instead of subpoenas, the act provides that such information will be sought via search warrants. The advantage for the FBI proceeding by search warrant rather than by subpoena is speed: While a party can wait and object to a grand jury subpoena before producing documents, compliance with a search warrant is immediate.”⁷ “[T]the ‘so-called’ search warrant is issued by a secret court. Once granted, it entitles the FBI to procure any library records pertaining to book circulation, Internet use or patron registration. Librarians can even be compelled to cooperate with the FBI in monitoring Internet usage.”⁸ Even more troubling, the library or librarian receiving such order is prohibited from disclosing its occurrence to anyone else as well.⁹ New section 50 U.S.C. § 501(d) commands that “[n]o person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.” Because of this, reports of library incidents of Section 215 investigations will be rather limited so do not expect to read about such investigations in the next issue of the OIF (Office for Intellectual Freedom) Newsletter, or an annual review of such occurrences in the same way the OIF reports on book challenges in libraries and schools. The implications for individual consumers, readers, of information as well as societyat large are discussed.

REFERENCES

1. Tomas A. Lipinski, To Speak or Not to Speak: Developing Legal Standards for Anonymous Speech on the Internet, 5 INFORMING SCIENCE 95 (2002).
2. In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6778 (D.D.C. 2003).
3. See, University Students Settle File-Swapping Law Suits, 7 The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, at 11 (2003); Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, February 26, 2003 on Peer-to-Peer Piracy on University Campuses.
4. Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
5. Jennifer C. Evans, Hijacking Civil Liberties: The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 33 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO LAW JOURNAL 933, 972 (2002).
6. Sharon H. Rackow, How the USA PATRIOT Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement Upon the Privacy of American in the Name of “Intelligence” Investigations, 150 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 1651, 1675 (2002) (footnote omitted)
7. Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., USA Patriot Act is Broader than You Might Imagine: From Libraries to Universities to Trucking Companies, Sweeping Provisions of the Act change the Status Quo, NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, April 15, 2002, (no pagination in LEXIS-NEXIS Legnew Library).
8. Zara Gelsey, Big Brother Hits the Books, THE RECORDER, July 19, 2002, at 5.
9. Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., USA Patriot Act is Broader than You Might Imagine: From Libraries to Universities to Trucking Companies, Sweeping Provisions of the Act change the Status Quo, NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, April 15, 2002, (no pagination in LEXIS-NEXIS Legnew Library) (“[L]ibraries are prohibited from disclosing to anyone other than counsel that the search warrant has been served and the nature of the documents obtained as a result of the search warrant.”).