AUTHOR
N Ben Fairweather

PUBLISHED IN
ETHICOMP Journal Vol 1 Issue 1

ABSTRACT

The increasing use of Information and Computer Technologies (ICTs) means that an ever-larger proportion of the world’s population is exposed to the possibility of repetitive strain injury (RSI) from computer use.

RSI is also known as occupational overuse injury and cumulative trauma disorder, and in some cases terms such as work-related upper limb disorders, tenosynovitis, thoracic outlet syndrome, and carpal tunnel syndrome are used.

This paper looks at a number of higher education and workplace RSI prevention policies, from countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, China and the United States, to morally evaluate them.

Evaluations take into account a variety of issues including the balance of corporate responsibility as against individual responsibility. In doing so, some of the broader issues of employer responsibility for health and safety are reviewed.

For a high proportion of policies studied, there is too much weight on individual responsibility. Many policies pay little or no attention to the context in which the computers are being used, putting unrealistic demands on individuals as a result.

Consideration is made of a variety of contexts in which ICTs are used. These include potentially problematic situations where due to work pressure it is difficult to take breaks. This is considered to be of particular importance because as ICTs spread to less industrialised countries, the high cost of the technology (relative to local incomes), increases the pressure to get maximum use from the equipment. The importance of line managers allowing, enabling, encouraging or enforcing suitable breaks (when all of these may be appropriate in some contexts), is generally not recognised in the policies studied.

One technically possible method for employers to take responsibility for the prevention of RSI is to electronically monitor keyboard use and other aspects of computer use. However, this gives rise to serious privacy concerns.

Another possible problem area is when the arrangements for access to ICTs (such as ‘open access’ or pre-booked workstations) preclude adequate breaks and proper ergonomic adjustment of the workstation for the individual user. Again this is of particular relevance when considering the spread of ICTs to less industrialised countries, as the high relative cost of them makes it likely that much access will be at shared workstations.

The paper also suggests that computer suppliers have a responsibility to supply relatively inexpensive software and equipment to prevent RSI with the computers they are supplying. Another suggestion is that suppliers should normally avoid shipping keyboards with built-in numeric keypads at the same time as right-handed mice – a combination that makes bad positioning while using the mouse almost inevitable.

While RSI is most closely associated with keyboard use, and there are suggestions that keyboard use might decline, there is also evidence that alternatives to keyboard use can cause RSI in some cases. If RSI is associated with technologies that can be expected to supplant keyboard use to some extent, the issues raised will be equally relevant when transferred to the new contexts.

The overall conclusion of the paper is that RSI is a very real problem, and will continue to be unless more widespread attention is paid to it. The control of RSI also requires that the attention paid to the problem involves a more realistic appraisal of the amount of responsibility individuals can be expected to bear.

AUTHOR
Gail E Evans and Sarah Moylan

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to consider the legal implications of cyber-ontology with reference to issues raised by the regulation of software. The authors begin by explaining the present disjuncture between classical legal paradigms which were conceived for a world of atoms, and the digital environment, a world which not only extends us physically but also facilitates a unique merging and shifting of identity. Given this altered ontological status, they argue that software is not merely an enabling technology, but also a form of discourse in so far as we are constituted by it. Drawing on the philosophy of Foucault and Habermas they explain how software, like language, also has an embedded structure that may be both hierarchical as well as political. They contend that our existing political vocabulary of race, class and social relations is being replaced with a technological jargon of systems design and communications engineering in which software plays a role that not merely utilitarian but pivotal and constructivist. The paper then examines the implications of software as discourse for the regulation of cyberspace through expansive intellectual property rights or mandated technical standards. The resulting analysis raises important constitutional issues for information society. If, for example, netizens are only able to participate in the digital polis predominantly through use of one particular software product, the authors question whether this would not constitute an unacceptable erosion of fundamental rights in freedom of speech or freedom of association? Using the patenting of internet business methods as a case study, they caution lawmakers against the unthinking expansion of proprietary rights without due consideration being given to the status of software as the discursive medium of cyberspace. The authors take the view that, while it may be technically correct to hold, as a United States court did in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc, 1998, that a computerised business method is patentable subject matter – that this is nevertheless an undesirable development. Indeed, if regulators continue to ignore the political and social significance of software as discourse, the authors caution that information society risks replacing traditional power structures for new forms of informational oppression. Although an extra-legal, technical response may be a feasible way of incorporating key values into the physical architecture of cyberspace, they submit that, given the fragmented nature of the digital polis, and the protectionist offensive by information industries, it would be more prudent to embed core values and fundamental freedoms within the construct of cyber-law. Only then, the authors conclude, when lawmaking is based on a theory of informatics, which takes account of software as discourse, can we hope to avoid the present dissonance between law and cyber-reality and instead look to the development of a transcendent normative framework for the regulation of information society.

AUTHOR
Cliff Evans

ABSTRACT

IT Security is becoming very important wherever computers and information come together. Training in IT Security in the UK has taken many forms, some good, and some poor. In order to provide guidance to those wishing to learn more about IT Security the Confederation of British industry (CBI) produced Guidelines on IT Security Training.

The author chaired the committee which produced these guidelines. When he later joined the University of Westminster he was given the opportunity to devise a course of study leading to a Masters degree in IT Security based on the CBI Guidelines.

The Guidelines included in post graduate degree courses a section on Law and Ethics in relation to IT Security. The Ethics section includes:-

• Principles of Conduct
• Codes of Conduct
• Rights and Responsibilities of People
• Employment Issues
• Ethical Considerations

This paper describes how the content of the Ethics teaching was devised, and how it was carried out. The University of Westminster attracts a very wide variety of students to it’s courses from a wide variety of backgrounds, so the section on Ethics had to be devised to cope with this situation without compromising the objective of the of the degree course.

The understanding of Ethics in any society depends on the background of both students and teachers. Ethical concepts are dependent of culture, race and faith, and can vary considerably as these dependencies vary. One of the ways of teaching computer ethics in this situation was to guide the students towards the search for common ethical values in IT within the group.

The current Ethics Module covers:-

• Introduction & definitions
• The Effect of Information Technology
• Rights and responsibilities of people
• Ethical Issues
• Law & Ethics
• Principles of conduct, Codes of Conduct & Codes of Practice
• Ethical Problems and the search for a Common Ethic
• Plus a Project

The background to all this is the main subject of ‘IT Security’, and the relevance of Ethics to this subject. Comparisons are also made to Ethics in some other professions

The subjects were covered by both formal lectures and by discussion/workshops. Much was learned from the project.

Information Technology covers the world. Almost everyone is (or soon will be) affected by it. The rapid development of computer communications (including the Internet) has brought about an ‘Information Revolution’ as significant as past revolutions such as the Industrial Revolution and the Printing Revolution. But, the Information Revolution has happened much more rapidly, and has affected many more people than any previous bloodless revolution. This has led to the rapid development of computer crime, which is increasing at a phenomenal rate. Hence the importance of IT Security.

If the world is to maximize the benefits of the Information Revolution, then it is imperative that we all find a common Ethic acceptable to all practitioners of Information Technology. The work on teaching Ethics in the context of teaching IT Security to graduates is forcing a reassessment of this important issue.

The section on Ethics, along with the rest of the course is still developing. This is usual in a subject which is changing so rapidly. The Ethics part of the course is changing as we adapt it to the needs of the students and to the changing subject itself.

AUTHOR
J.J. Escribano, Rosalia Peña and Javier Extremera

ABSTRACT

Considering the results of the survey which under examination in this paper, we can see that there is a relationship between the computer user’s gender and his/her appraisal of ethical issues.

For example, 28,3% of women say that they have been taught ethics on their profession, versus 21,1% of men. If we consider that men and women are together in the same faculties and classrooms, attending the same lectures, we can deduce that women follow these issues more closely.

Besides, if women and men consider that a reflection on ethical related to their professions is positive, (average mark is 6.5 out of 10), again women seem to be more aware (7.0/6.2).

Even in questions such as “Do technicians need to have a knowledge of legal aspects of their professions?”, where the answers are overwhelmingly positive, there are some differences between gender (98% – 93.4%).

This trend continues in answers to questions related to protection of the information and related subjects. Once more, women give priority to these issues, indicating that women are more demanding. The gap is bigger in legal aspects, and even more so in ethical ones.

Moreover, although they give more importance to the formation of an ethical awareness from childhood, women are more willing to mature their ethical ideas and value as positive the time devoted to learning these aspects.

A very significant aspect is the difference between the women who say they have thought about the effects of computers on society (68.1% ) and the men ( 36.3%). According to women’s opinion, the existence of computers in the family home seems to have less influence on their relationships with their parents (only 6.1% of the women surveyed say that these relationships would be different if there were no computers at home versus 17.1% of the men). This percentage increases if the study focuses on the influence of a TV set instead of a computer. However, it is again men who recognise a greater interference (48.8% – 35.2%).

Another aspect to be considered is to analyse the interest shown towards the use of computers in general and the use of the Internet in particular. On the one hand, it becomes clear that there is a considerable increase in the number of computers is the males’ homes (1.4 – 0.9 in the females’ homes). On the other hand, there are crucial differences pertaining to the amount of time they spent at the computer: Women spent almost an hour less than men. Besides, the distribution of this time depending on the activity: work, play and work-play, is quite enlightening. When it comes to work, the differences are quite small, whereas the differences between the two other activities are much broader. This leads us to think that men use the computer voluntarily more than women.

In order to establish a comparison between these figures and others related to the use of other technologies, we asked about the amount of TV sets owned by the people surveyed and the amount of time they spent watching. The differences which can be observed between the genders in this respect are much smaller.

As regards Internet, the differences are quite outstanding. 13% of men vs 1.9% of women use Internet. When asked whether they found it easy to access the system, 71.8% of men and 60% of women said it was easy. If we consider that the facilities to access the system are similar in both cases (men and women access the Internet from their own faculties), we can come to the conclusion that male students connect with the Internet more than women.

When we focus this study on those individuals whose work is more directly related to the use of computers and telecommunications, the differences regarding the number of computers at home and time spent working on them dissappear. However, the amount of time spent playing and connected to Internet remain the same. This fact seems to indicate that there is no relationship between pursuing technical studies and the differences shown between the genders.

In conclusion, given the importance that it is assuming in Society nowadays and their influence on the aspects shown in this paper, we postulate the need to take positive action in order to facilitate equality for both men and women; either by bringing women closer to Internet through changes in its content and interface, or by bringing them closer to the world of telecommunications.

AUTHOR
Penny Duquenoy, Harold Thimbleby and Steve Torrance

ABSTRACT

The Internet has generated a great deal of ethical debate [e.g. 1, 2]. Ethical tensions have emerged due in part to the enabling aspect of Information Technology (e.g. freedom of expression, scope of reach) which are evident to a certain extent within national cultures, and magnified within an international environment. Addressing ethical issues on the Internet within national boundaries, although difficult, would normally result in national policies supported by the governments concerned, and where appropriate, by introducing legislation. However, the global (international) nature of the Internet poses difficulties in the resolution of such ethical concerns by traditional methods of regulation [3].

This paper proposes a distinctive approach to the resolution of international ethical issues concerning the Internet. It seeks to examine the appropriateness of Habermas’s Discourse Ethics [4] to the Internet as a methodology for the resolution of ethical dilemmas within such a global dimension. A universalistic ethics has an intuitive appeal as far as an “ethics for the Internet” is concerned.

Links and relationships between Habermas’s theory of discourse ethics and the Internet are pursued and comparisons made between the two. This study reveals parallels between discourse ethics in the societies as envisaged by Habermas, and the larger “society” of the Internet.

How far these parallels go, particularly the ‘fit’ between theory and practice, is considered as we move from the abstract to the practical. This section of the paper reports on international and UK working groups involved with regulatory mechanisms and issues concerning the Internet. The viewpoint is an observational one, with the focus not so much on the content of the discussions as with the underlying conditions, procedures and outcomes – and how far they are in accord with the preconditions for discourse ethics as described by Habermas.

Is there a place for Habermas’s Discourse Ethics in the Internet arena? This paper shows that to some extent a discourse ethics is already in operation – how far this goes to resolving the deeper issues remains to be seen. Habermas offers a dynamic approach to resolving ethical conflict which, at least in part, meets some of the requirements of an Internet ethics.

References

[1] Johnson, D.G., and Nissenbaum, H., (Eds) (1995), Computers, Ethics and Social Values, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

[2] Kling, R., (Ed), (1996), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd Ed., Academic Press Inc.

[3] Berleur, J., and Brunnstein, K., (Eds) (1996), Ethics of Computing: Codes, spaces for discussion and law, Chapman & Hall, London .

[4] Habermas, Jurgen, (1983), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, MIT Press 1990. Translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.

AUTHOR
Ruud van Dael and Marc van Lieshout

ABSTRACT

In this paper we will discuss the shifting grounds on which the attribution of responsibility to computer professionals takes place. At first glance this attribution process seems unproblematic: (members of) a profession is (are) responsible for its (their) own products. So, the computing profession should take its responsibility. We will however argue that the shifting boundaries of the computing profession make the attribution of responsibility problematic. We illustrate these issues with two Dutch cases.

The first case discusses the founding of formal informatics education in the Netherlands. In the first academic informatics curriculum which started in 1980, applied informatics was left out. Applying software in organizations was not regarded as part of ‘real’ informatics. Real informatics was the fundamental study of data-processing, it focused on algorithms, operating systems and formal methods. At this academic level, people working in applied informatics were no part of the computing profession.

Seven years earlier, two kinds of higher vocational informatics education had started: one course in technical informatics and one in applied informatics. Graduates from the technical course became specialists in ‘hard’ software, graduates from the applied course in ‘soft’ software. At this vocational level, people working with applied software in organisations (for instance designing information systems) were part of the computing profession. The apparent contradiction between what should be seen as sound part of informatics can not easily be attributed to the difference between vocational and academic disciplinary work. Today, both educational systems converge, making the discrimination between both professional careers superficial. In attributing responsibility to a professional group, the demarcation between both groups of professional workers is detrimental for a transparent strategy with respect to professional responsibility.

Our second case discusses the contemporary alleged shortage of computing professionals in the Netherlands. Last year a governmental advisory committee stated that the shortage of computing professionals on the labor market was a structural problem. This report argued that three different groups shaped the computing profession: people who formalize and represent information in algorithms; people who study, design, develop, implement, support or maintain computer related information systems; and people who use information technology in an advanced manner. This description resulted in boundaries of the computing profession that enclosed groups of ‘users’.

Not everybody agreed with these boundaries. In a 1996 report on the future of informatics the authors, professors in informatics, stated that using information systems was not a part of their science. The professors explicitly excluded the ‘users’ from the computing profession. Again, the interpretation of who is ‘inside’ and who is ‘outside’ the group of computing professionals has not satisfactory been solved, and introduces ambiguities with respect to professional and responsible behaviour. Both these examples show that the boundaries of the computing profession were and are unstable, and even unclear. What does this imply for attributing responsibility to the computing profession? Responsibility, just as tasks, is either claimed by a profession or attributed to a profession by society. In the traditional view, responsibility was causally related to the mandate a profession received to perform a certain set of tasks. There was societal consensus on the professional expertise. A professional did not need to claim responsibility for his tasks, since his domain of expertise was not open for negotiation.

Our examples point however in another direction. In case of computing professionals, there is no consensus on the boundaries of their expertise. No strict and unquestioned demarcation lines are available that decide who belongs to the profession and who does not. It thus remains opaque what tasks are attributed to the computing profession and to what responsibilities these tasks are related. As long as different boundaries are constructed around the expertise of the computing professions, the attribution and claiming of responsibility will remain a cumbersome affair. The very notion that expert knowledge itself is negotiable, complicates the problem of responsibility. Our examples of applied informatics in the seventies and of using advanced information systems in the nineties are a case in point. The traditional idea of unquestioned professional knowledge is replaced by the late modern notion of fragmented contradictory expertise. Hence the idea of an impartial responsible professional is no longer valid. Responsibility is also open to negotiation.