AUTHOR
Wade Robison

ABSTRACT

The information about us being collected on hard drive is turning us into Leibnizian digital monads–strings of predicates of digitized data. Those concerned to protect those strings have claimed that giving access to that string either invades our privacy or denies a property right. These two rights are combined in the American privacy tort of appropriation, and that tort provides a legal history we can appeal to in examining problems that arise regarding these digital strings and a legal and an ethical basis for denying to others rights over those strings, a more substantial basis than we can find by resting claims on either privacy or property alone.

Concerns about protecting the information about each of us that is being collected and collated on hard drives have fastened on either the right to privacy or the right to property. It has been claimed both that giving access to that string invades our privacy and that we each have a property right in our string. These two rights are combined in the American tort of appropriation, one of four privacy torts that has entered American law over the past century, and that tort provides both a legal history we can appeal to in examining problems that arise regarding these digital strings and a legal and, as it turns out, an ethical basis for denying to others rights over those strings. We shall begin with an analysis of Leibniz’s concept of a monad, a string of predicates that conceptually presages the digitization of our lives. We shall then turn in 3 to how much that digitization is creating a new sense of personal identity for us. Before turning to the tort, we shall examine the commodification of our digital selves.

AUTHOR
David A. Rice

ABSTRACT

Copyright protects computer programs and audio visual works, and provides limited protection to data compilations. The European Union Data Protection Directive and proposed United States legislation call for database protection beyond that ordinarily provided by copyright. Although expanding, these protections are limited and are becoming secondary to the use of contract and technology as means for regulating use of computer programs and information access and use. This shift from dependence on copyright and related law to reliance on contractual and technological protections has direct consequences that raise important information society policy and ethics issues.

Software publishers first licensed the use of copies instead of selling them in order to create anti-copying use restrictions. This originated at a time when copyright protection for computer programs was uncertain. When copyright protection was recognized, contractual use and transfer restrictions came to be used more as means to differentiate, and thereby price discriminate between, user markets rather than as a substitute for copyright protection. Electronic information content providers, however, seized upon copy use licensing as a means to protect uncopyrightable but readily reproducible content, and also to price discriminate.

The enforceability of these terms when used in standard form contracts has been the subject of great debate and differences of view in the courts in the United States and other countries. In the United States, proposed Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B: Computer Information Transactions*** adopts the license paradigm, validates shrink-wrap, click-wrap and other standard form licenses, and generally makes their term enforceable. Contemporaneous initiatives have sought to create copyright-based or sui generis database protection. Among the most important products of the effort are the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annex to the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and certain provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1998.

Electronic publication and dissemination of information is furthered by legal recognition of contractual and technological protection against unauthorized reproduction or distribution. They encourage commercial investment in the publication and distribution of computer programs, multimedia works, and database products. Their use as means for price discrimination provides a basis for making information products more widely available by charging different prices to occasional, or noncommercial users, than to commercial users. Universal access limitations are thereby reduced.

Still, technological and contractual protection primarily serve the interests of commercial publishers, not authors. Historically, market failure in the case of inventions and creative works is a widely recognized basis for state creation of intellectual property rights. Even so, intellectual property law limits the rights it creates. In contrast, contractual and technological regulation of access and use are subject to only limitations that others can create by bargain, or that legal institutions impose.

This paper identifies social costs that may result from strengthening legal support for contractual and technological regulation of information access and use. Examples include compromise of public and university library, museum, and other institutions service as historical and cultural archives. Licensing, and restricting, use of CD-ROM and on-line databases regulates users opportunities to read, record, and use information. Contractual or technological creation of temporal limits on database or multimedia product use, and requiring payment of a license renewal fees, make collection items transient rather than archival.

Broader social, cultural, and economic policy issues are identified and opened for consideration. For example, price and other terms governing access to and use of digitally stored and disseminated historical and cultural text, data, images, or sounds of ones own heritage may be set by a distant commercial entity. Commercial marketability of digital representations of cultural traditions, knowledge and heritage increasingly may influence social and natural science field research priorities. Marketing and other commercialization considerations (or values) may influence decisions about what is, and is not, selected for digital electronic dissemination, virtual representation, and preservation in the archive of education, edutainment and entertainment products.

Posing these questions is not meant to suggest their answers. In deed, no single paper can adequately explore or fully dimension the identified issues, let alone others that demand the attention of the public and of public policy decisionmakers. It is important, however, to identify and promote consideration of potential social costs of otherwise readily apparent benefits. The authors aim is to significantly contribute to that necessary endeavor.

AUTHOR
David Resnick

ABSTRACT

Supporters of universal Internet access argue that unequal access creates ethical problems which cannot be left to the vagaries of the market to solve. Such assertions depend upon functional arguments, claims that Internet access is necessary in order to achieve various well-defined desirable ends, and equity arguments, which appeal to distributive justice. Since functional arguments are necessary to support equitable arguments, they must be valid. In the case of Internet access, there must be good reason to believe that the technology will in fact deliver the benefits claimed. Moral appeals for universal Internet access combine functional arguments and equitable arguments.

Four major arguments claiming that unequal access to the Internet creates a special ethical dilemma are analyzed: 1) The digital divide argument: since the online population is disproportionately white and male, justice demands that actions be taken to increase the number of women and minorities. 2) The democratic citizenship argument: the Internet is, or will be, such an important tool for democratic participation and for acquiring politically relevant information that not having access to it would amount to the disenfranchisement of significant sections of the population. 3) The economic argument: The Internet is, or will be, such an important aspect of the overall economy that excluding segments of the population would prevent them from improving their economic condition. 4) The education argument: The Internet is, or will be, such an important educational resource that children denied access to it would be severely educationally handicapped.

These arguments are much weaker than they first appear and do not justify extensive public remedies. They often rely on dubious functional arguments and questionable moral assumptions. If the ideal of universal access is ever achieved, it will come through technological developments driven by market forces, not government subsidies or costly regulations intended to increase the number of people online. Universal Internet access is simply not a pressing moral problem.

AUTHOR
Agneta Ranerup

ABSTRACT

One important issue in Information Society is if Internet will be used only for commercial purposes, or if it can be used to actually improve democracy. This paper provides concrete experiences of how the Internet is used with the aim of improving democracy. Also, some ethical dilemmas in relation to these experiences are also being discussed. More particularly, experiences will be presented of how on-line discussion forums are used in a local government context in two Swedish cities. This research is clearly connected to experiences of US Community networks. However, due to the particularities of the context (Swedish local government politics) there are many ethical issues and dilemmas that are of interest in themselves, as well as in relation to a US context. The main issue is if the debate has been sufficient as to attain the ideal of deliberative democracy. According to this ideal there should be a lively debate before political decisions are made. There should also be politicians who can be held responsible for the decisions. A second issue is how different factors have influenced the amount of debate, and how this influence can be characterized. Three factors will be discussed 1) The first is the initiators of the forums (local government or others), as well as how potential user groups have been involved in the implementation process i.e. Participatory Design aspects. The ethical dimension here has to do with how a democratic tool as an on-line forum actually is created, and who is allowed to take part in this process. 2) The second factor is if there have been any activities with the aim of increasing access to the technology. According to literature, a necessary prerequisite for if Internet will improve democracy is that access must be high. If this is not the case the technology will not have democratic effects. On the other hand, increasing access costs money, which is quite a problem in a local government context. Also, there is the problem of providing citizens with technology, as opposed to politicians. Thus, this aspect provides several examples of ethical dilemmas. 3) The third factor is the functional and organizational aspects of the on-line forums. The existence of moderators, censorship, and limited options for choosing issues to discuss are aspects with a clear ethical dimension. Lastly, three strategies are suggested of how to increase the amount of debate in the forums. One strategy could be to import some qualities from the US Community networks by engaging various citizen groups in the debate. An ethical dilemma here is if this is in accordance with the ideal of deliberative democracy. Also, the citizen group may risk being colonized or being “bought off” by local government. A second strategy could be to open up a 100% open discussion without any limitations regarding the issues that could be discussed. This is good for the freedom of speech, but can result in a debate that is favorable to e.g. racism. Thirdly, the politicians might be stimulated to contribute to the debate, for example by suggesting issues for discussion. This would probably make them more interested, but will it result in issues in the debate that are of interest to citizens?

AUTHOR
Harjinder Rahanu,Jennifer Davies and Simon Rogerson

PUBLISHED IN
ETHICOMP Journal Vol 1 Issue 2

ABSTRACT

As part of on going research, cases of failed IS projects, including the London Stock Exchange TAURUS project, the London Ambulance Service Computer Aided Despatch System and similar have been ethically analysed. The results of the analyses determine whether and to what extent a neglect of professional ethics contributed towards their failure. This case library formed the basis for development of the case based reasoner, a technique used in computer science to incorporate intelligent reasoning into a system. A case based reasoner (CBR) computer system, which can offer ethical advice with reference to cases of failed IS projects was developed as a teaching tool. A questionnaire was developed to monitor usability issues so that ensuing feedback could be translated into modifications of the CBR prototype, as necessary. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the CBR as a teaching tool an experiment was conducted. The principle of the experiment was that two identical groups of students had been selected. The first (the experimental group) was given the CBR as a resource to complete an assignment and the other group (the control group) was not so that, with caveats, an increase in the quality of the students’ analyses might be a pointer as to whether the tool was facilitating learning.

AUTHOR
Charles D. Raab

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we sketch a view of the emerging system of information privacy protection as it might be developed. We use the word ‘system’ to emphasise the importance of relationships amongst the organisational, legal, personal, governmental and other elements through which the future of privacy is arbitrated. One important task is to understand these relationships better. Another task is to develop a theoretical framework through which we might explain the use and impact of different privacy protection instruments and approaches. A third task is to explore the potential for privacy protection policy in the future.

Some drivers of change are in the realm of technology, values and ethical issues, but others are identifiable groups. The main ones include the general public, who are becoming more aware of privacy risks but who – as consumers – want better services and more goods; businesses, which want to exploit personal data assets but which also need public trust; and governments, which likewise want to rationalise and co-ordinate their use of personal data but which also have to uphold certain commitments to protecting privacy. Privacy pressure group activists are also an identifiable factor.

Building upon some of our previous writings, we try to identify somewhat more precisely the participants (akin to ‘stakeholders’) who form the basic units of the system through which privacy-related decision-making takes place. A relevant and provisional minimal list of participants includes:

• the agency(ies) that implement privacy laws and regulate practices
• governments, which make policies and laws (including privacy laws) in which privacy is implicated
• businesses, which use personal data
• the public, who are data subjects
• privacy pressure groups and other political actors, including the media
• technology developers and providers

The following schematic diagram displays their possible categorical relationships within a system of privacy protection:

This picture can be looked at in at least two ways. In one sense, it describes players and their interdependence in what might be called an implementation system for privacy protection: that is, a system which shapes the outcome, or the quality of privacy that is available in the society. In this sense, the arrows could represent mutual support, as they all pull together towards protecting privacy. We could then perhaps observe that some arrows are ‘stronger’ or more important than others – that more support is offered in some relationships than in others. Nonetheless, from this perspective one can talk about synergy.

In another sense, however, and not completely different from the first, the diagram portrays a political system in which the attitudes and actions of participants contribute significantly to the outcome, as they use resources of various kinds – formal powers, money, technical expertise, publicity, and others – in a complex set of exchanges, influences, compromises, sanctions, shifting alliances, and so on. Looked at in terms of a policy and implementation network, the diagram can draw upon as well as provide a way of illuminating contemporary general theories and models of governance. What is particularly important is the distribution of power to determine the outcome. It is also a system or network in which the relationships may vary along a continuum between consensus and conflict; therefore, it is a political system and not simply a purpose-built or synergistic mechanism for producing privacy protection.

The paper keeps both of these related perspectives in mind, whilst also noting that there is no easily identifiable ‘top’ that can ensure that the outcome satisfies its intentions or desires. Even though there are legal and formal requirements, for instance, these cannot always be imposed even if imposing them were a sensible and desirable way to protect privacy. We argue that privacy protection has to be negotiated through the system described in the diagram, rather than decreed. This is most important if, beyond simply describing what happens, we are thinking of a scenario of instruments or strategies for privacy protection. This is especially so in view of what has become, in very recent years, a conventional wisdom that protecting privacy in the ‘information age’ depends upon some combination of legislation, regulatory activity, self-regulation by data users, privacy-enhancing technologies, and individual self-help by data subjects. In most discussions, these policy instruments have been considered in isolation one from another. There is a certain amount of rhetoric about a ‘mosaic of solutions’ or a ‘regulatory mix’. With a few exceptions, a serious treatment of how these approaches relate one to another within a coherent implementation system remains to be done. That task relies upon a better understanding of the roles played by the various participants within the system for the implementation of privacy protection policy, and of the conditions affecting their performance and interaction. We draw upon relevant political science literature on the nature and choice of policy instruments to develop these theoretical arguments, including a typology of instruments and comparisons among them according to certain selected variables. We emphasise that no policy instrument can stand alone: each one depends upon action elsewhere in the system, and that action may need to be cultivated, and relationships designed, rather than simply waited for to happen.

The paper is informed by research-based evidence from two cases: the UK and Canada. The former has been implementing a data protection regime since 1984. Canada has had data protection for the public sector since the 1970s, but has only just introduced statutory protection for private sector organisations, to be enforced from 2000. The analysis of these cases allows a comparison of one developed regime and one that is less developed, although they co-exist in a policy framework that is shaped in part by international understandings, the global spread of information and communications technologies, normative guidelines and institutional machinery. The paper suggests how the ‘co-production’ of privacy protection perhaps occurs in similar ways within two political systems that otherwise differ in a large number of structural and cultural respects.

By exploring these theoretical issues and empirical developments, the paper draws implications for practice that might contribute to future developments of data protection regimes on the basis of better understanding of systemic roles, relationships and interactions, as well as of policy instruments.