AUTHOR
Stuart Shapiro

ABSTRACT

Viewing information strictly as a commodity limits rather than expands our understanding of the “information society” and the “information economy.” Although we must now contend with new types of information-e.g. personal genetic markers-as well as old types of information in new contexts-e.g. textual information distributed over the World Wide Web-the worldview which perceives and situates information as a commodity is as old as notions of intellectual property dating back to the Renaissance. What is needed, among other things, is a framework which takes seriously the distinctly modern interaction of personal information and market activity and its impact on economic fairness. Issues of information and fairness have received attention in the economics literature, but current developments in information and communication technology raise them to new prominence. It behooves us, then, to carefully consider how an information economy should relate to the society in which it operates.

The example discussed here is the customer loyalty programs used by many supermarkets in the United States and the United Kingdom (and perhaps in other countries as well). These programs reward shoppers with discounts and other forms of compensation in return for allowing their purchases to be tracked as well as matched against demographic profiles. From the standpoint of information as a commodity (which overlaps with the data subject/data user model underlying much privacy regulation), this is a straightforward economic transaction. However, from the perspective of economic fairness, this constitutes a significant information imbalance which can enable, among other practices, highly targeted preferential pricing schemes. Preferential pricing can be offered to identified individuals (as opposed to groups or the public in general) on the basis of information which has been collected precisely for that purpose (rather than being a necessary part of a previous transaction).

This suggests that there may well be a regulatory role for governments in situations where new information asymmetries may affect the fairness of economic transactions. There is clear precedent for such regulations, at least in the United States, in the prohibitions against “insider” stock trading. More mundane examples are consumer protection laws requiring disclosure of information such as nutritional data for packaged food. And certainly there is substantial precedent in many countries for government regulation aimed at rectifying market distortions in general. Yet, the implications for market fairness of the commodification of private information have been all but ignored. This paper suggests that treating personal information as a commodity increasingly carries with it the potential for diminished fairness in the operation of market mechanisms.

AUTHOR
Jamal Shahin

AUTHOR

The issues raised by the Internet reinforce (some say drive) the present trends towards globalisation of economic, political and social systems. It is thus necessary to examine the impact of the Internet on the role of state in this complex, changing era. The pervasiveness of the Internet in everyday life, as well as its global nature makes the analysis of its relationship with the state very difficult to determine, but this paper will attempt to focus upon the concept of governance and regulation in the information age.

This paper will attempt to mark out some of the crucial borders between cyberspace and ‘state’ space. It will provide the means to reveal the complexities of the relationship between the two. The issue of education and access to the Information Infrastructure/ Information Society are being dealt with at state level (with, in most cases, market support), but the issue of content regulation and legislation of the Global Internet is one that states are finding increasingly problematic, as the Internet becomes ‘more’ global. This paper will highlight the paradoxical nature of the state’s role in the information age. This paradox is unlikely to disappear if states do not agree upon a common regulatory framework for both infrastructure and content issues.

It is important to try to define the impact of the Internet upon the individual, and the individual’s relationship with the state. Due to the fact that the Internet has the potential to become all pervasive, affecting every aspect of our lives, this is all the more difficult. However, the task can be made easier if we examine the nature of the Internet from the two perspectives of infrastructure and content, which will attempt to bring together two very divergent attitudes in concepts, or paradigms, towards the role of the Internet in the information age. These two very different issues, when separated, provide us with new questions to answer. Should infrastructure and content be treated similarly? How does one regulate content when delivered from a global soap-box? Is infrastructure something that has no ethical considerations (e.g. the DNS issue), or should the technical development of the Internet be a global concern?

The main hypothesis in this paper questions the role of the state, and state-based institutions in providing an adequate regulatory framework for the Internet. The Internet is a global phenomenon, which disregards territorial geography, but the state is important in creating the Information Societies which seem to ultimately disrespect the state’s authority and legitimacy. Does this mean the end of the sovereign territorial state? And if so, what will replace it? Can we hope for a ‘global state’, which will be able to regulate the Internet and not stifle its growth? Can the state be removed from a world that has relied upon the state to act as the ultimate authority in a particular space? If regulation and governance must be global, does this require the development of a global ethic that goes further than agreement that “crimes against humanity” are unethical? Is there a global ethic that could discuss issues of content and infrastructure for the global Internet?

The Internet would seem to require a different paradigm of governance and a different model of regulation. This could be “self-governance”, but this has its own ethical concerns. The paper will attempt to examine how the lack of a global ethic will restrict the Internet from developing into the truly global mechanism. It will try to provoke discussion into creating this ethic, or to try to find ways around the issue of global regulation and governance.

AUTHOR
Philippe Scheimann

ABSTRACT

Knowing that we are the eve of the Millennium, this paper is trying to build a bridge between technology, spirituality and communication: we look at the evolution of the Information Technology and the Internet on the one hand and at the nature of Man based on (Indian) spirituality and modern theories on communication (Neuro Linguistic Programming) on the other hand.

This bridge will allow personal development at home and at work through stress reduction, creativity enhancement and to a larger extent through an intelligent use of the technology adapted to each and everyone according to his/her inner obstacles and cognitive preferences. We’ll show how the Internet and IT can influence positively and unfortunately negatively on the various chakras (centers of energy) of the human body and on the behavior of the person.

The main trends in terms of technology are the wide use of the Internet and of the computers and the multimedia effects where mostly visual and auditive senses are being used.

In terms of the inner system, one can say that there are 7 centers that have specific qualities and where Information Technology can intervene:

The First one raises the innocence, the wisdom and the purity which are within us and that are strong within the born child. Pornographic web sites do attack this center and the person will become some kind of survivor who needs to live at any price including the suffering of others. On the other hand, images of nature for instance can be used as desktop background in order to heal this center.

The Second one is connected to pure knowledge, attention and creativity. Inflexible information or operating systems that do not fit the user needs will tend to restrict his/her abilities to be creative and will prevent the user to really put his/her attentions on the subject.

The Third one is connected to the mastery principle and the ability to be satisfied. Information systems that require (useless) perfectionism will bring negative influences.

The Fourth one brings the qualities of faith, the disappearance of fears and the ability to be responsible. For instance, the use of Mopy Fish on the computer may help to raise the sense of responsibility of someone who is afraid to take any responsibility. On the other hand, certain pictures from web sites or on screensavers may bring fears.

The fifth one is connected to communication with oneself and with the others. The early days of the Internet did bring some healthy rules in terms of behavior through the Netiquette. The growing use of Junk Mail, “Flaming” have negative effects on this center.

The sixth one deals with the ability to forgive, to reduce ones ego and not to think too much. The Internet brings the ability to be flexible, to change data as often as we wish. The down side is that there is a huge volume of information and therefore problems in terms of decision making process.

The last center deals with the integration of the whole person. The Second one is connected to pure knowledge, attention and creativity. Inflexible information or operating systems that do not fit the user needs will tend to restrict his/her abilities to be creative and will prevent the user to really put his/her attentions on the subject.

The Third one is connected to the mastery principle and the ability to be satisfied. Information systems that require (useless) perfectionism will bring negative influences.

The Fourth one brings the qualities of faith, the disappearance of fears and the ability to be responsible. For instance, the use of Mopy Fish on the computer may help to raise the sense of responsibility of someone who is afraid to take any responsibility. On the other hand, certain pictures from web sites or on screensavers may bring fears.

The fifth one is connected to communication with oneself and with the others. The early days of the Internet did bring some healthy rules in terms of behavior through the Netiquette. The growing use of Junk Mail, “Flaming” have negative effects on this center.

The sixth one deals with the ability to forgive, to reduce ones ego and not to think too much. The Internet brings the ability to be flexible, to change data as often as we wish. The down side is that there is a huge volume of information and therefore problems in terms of decision making process.

The last center deals with the integration of the whole person.

AUTHOR
Giuseppe Sacco

ABSTRACT

“Every millennium has its own apocalypsis” has been written relative to the so-called “Millennium Bug Problem”, and the issue has been discussed with a varying degree of seriousness in different countries, but has been too frequently considered as a one-time problem. Many people with important collective responsibilities even in the minority which has not downplayed the related risks seem to believe that after the critical night of December 31 there will be no more danger on systems whose functioning depend heavily on Information Technologies.

The much talked-about decision of the Chinese authorities to oblige the very persons in charge of security to be on a plane at that moment, is a sign of a basic misconception.

Fragility is indeed a permanent feature of large systems and infrastructures that work on the principle of interconnection and on the basis of exchange of data. And most fragile, among them, are the so-called “legacy systems”, made up by interconnecting in successive waves of “modernisation”, older infrastructures, with the inevitable bugs and frequently unexplored problems due to the interfacing between different technologies and/or different generations of software.

Apart from fiction indulging in “disaster scenarios”, assessments of this type of risks have been already attempted, by two different types of subjects. On one side – also because of continuous hacker intrusion, which is frequently a form of politically-oriented provocation by the military and intelligence community. On the other side, by corporations interested in protecting their systems from costly interference and disruption.

These two subjects, however, frequently see themselves as rivals. Government officials and experts are convinced that software companies spread exaggerate rumours in order to try to sell the latest security software exploiting the fears of an uninformed and technically incompetent public. Corporations, in their turn, suspect that governments are afraid of losing control of large sections of societal activities (the most classical example being the downfall of broadcasting monopolies in Europe, and the most recent the beginning of an international public opinion via the Internet, with which Governments such as the Peking and Singapore ones dont know how to deal) and tend to resist outside interference in the management of security problems.

The self-evident fact that the public and private roles and interests converge in the protection of critical information-dependent infrastructures is however admitted in the case of privately owned and operated systems that could be attacked in order to cripple the functioning of an entire country, or a group of strictly interrelated countries, such as the EU. Info-war being the future (and possibly present) way of waging “total war”, little distinction is possible between societal and political interest to protection and defence.

But disagreement persist on the sharing of the (yet largely unknown) cost that should be faced in order to create reliable protection against cyber warfare through which a minor power could wage a computer-based aggression against other countries and win by crippling the functioning of its most critical infrastructures.

Companies see their duty as that of providing a service. Governments tend to say that they have to guarantee it. On this different approach lies nor only the question about how has to be shared the cost defence against an info-attack, but also the much more serious and politically delicate question of the managing and controlling security in an information-based society.

These issues, and a critical analysis of the various responses to them that are being proposed in the discussions presently underway, will be presented in the proposed paper.

AUTHOR
Richard S. Rosenberg

ABSTRACT

Much of the motivation for filtering and blocking programs arises from the efforts in the U. S. to defeat the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) by showing that programs exist, or would soon exist, to control access at the local level, removing the need to place the burden on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In some sense, this was a bargain made with the devil because those opposed to the CDA expected that filtering programs would largely be used in the privacy of one’s home, not in public institutions such as libraries, schools, and community centres. This latter use, imposes restrictions on the general public (library patrons) that do not apply to families that choose to purchase and use such programs in their homes. In public places, they violate individual choice by substituting software whose criteria of access are largely a mystery and are subject to a number of pressure groups with their own agendas.

If filtering programs are to be employed, and the current discussion in the U. S. Congress strongly suggests that their use will be made mandatory, if federal funds are to be allocated to pay for Internet connections, then at the very least, the filtering criteria – keywords, local or remote lists – must be accessible to library patrons; otherwise, the process is simply a form of censorship. Since libraries are the only source of Internet access for many people, they should not limit that access by arbitrary means. Although the debate is informed by both legal and ethical positions, the focus on this paper will be on the ethical side. That is librarians, as professionals, must make decisions with respect to access policies, limited budgets, collections policies, and the rights of the borrowers, to say nothing of community standards in general.

As professionals dedicated to upholding open inquiry and the right to access available information sources, librarians face a number of difficult challenges with respect to the use of filtering programs. It is not surprising therefore that the professional associations in Canada and the US have adopted very strong stances against the use of filters. Nevertheless, in some libraries, community pressure has resulted in a variety of strategies to ^Lprotect children9 while leaving adults free to pursue their interests. For example, one or more computers in the children9s section may have a filtering program installed but none of the ones in the adult areas are similarly compromised. Computers in the adult areas may be shielded from casual view by surrounding them with portable walls or that dreaded tap on the shoulder may be employed to remind patrons that they should respect the sensibilities of others. All of these strategies are hotly debated in the library community.

But what of the growing number of filtering programs and blocking programs based on criteria that may not be readily available or even understandable.? Key words, lists of blocked sites, levels or degrees of violence or sex to characterize Web sites, all present problems to professionals who are concerned with helping people answer their questions. And why should librarians be responsible for children whose parents have dropped them off in the supposedly safe confines of a library while they go about their shopping? All of these issues are distinct from a number of legal and political ones, such as possible government requirements that to obtain federal funds for accessing the Internet, schools, libraries, and community centres, may have to install filtering programs or that local politicians may initiate similar requirements to win the favour of their conservative constituents. I will argue that filters are no substitute for responsible parents and if conservatives wish to keep government out of their lives, they should assume a more involved role in the Internet activities of their children.

In what follows, we will describe filtering programs and some examples of known problems associated with their use, both in Canada and the U. S. Blocking programs based on self-rating mechanisms present other, someone more subtle difficulties, and concern with their use and the seductive notion of self-rating in general will be discussed as well. The current debate will be characterized and criticized, with examples drawn from both the US and Canada. Wider ramifications will also be examined as the European Community is also considering the use of filters to tame the world of the Internet. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations will be offered in the light of the arguments presented.

AUTHOR
László Ropolyi

PUBLISHED IN
ETHICOMP Journal Vol 1 Issue 2

ABSTRACT

There is a close analogy between the situation of the citizens of the XV-XVI. century and that of the netizens of our age. In the late Middle Ages the crisis of belief, now the crisis of knowledge can be diagnosed.

Reorganisation of the relation of man to God was the most important purpose of the Reformation: one wanted to eliminate the entire church-institution system from this intimate relation. The goal was the individual freedom in matters of belief. Faith was conceived of as a personal and direct relation to God, without the interpretations of the experts of faith. For this direct relation to the Word of God printing ensured the “technical” background.

That old crisis produced a new era with the emergence of human knowledge, but now the modern knowledge arrived at a similar crisis situation. Now the question is the following: How could we emancipate ourselves from the rule of the uncontrollable, abstract reason?

The relation of the individual human beings to the knowledge is situated now in a similar position as the faith of the citizens of the late Middle Ages. The reformators of knowledge have to eliminate the power of the experts of the abstract reason, and the scientific-institution systems and they have to build up a new, direct and personal relation between man and knowledge. Fortunately, modernity produced the networks of computers as “technical” tools for this task. This is the time of the reformation of human knowledge, five hundred years after the reformation of belief. Our hero is a re-emancipated man who wants to throw off the yoke of the abstract feeling and the abstract reason, as well.