AUTHOR
Charles D. Raab and Colin. J. Bennett

ABSTRACT

This article discusses a relatively neglected topic in the study of information privacy and data protection: the social distribution of the privacy risks faced by individuals, and the ability of laws and practices of data protection systems to ameliorate these differentials and thus to promote equality in the distribution of privacy. Whilst threats to information privacy gain in importance as an issue in the development of an ‘information society’, there is little detailed knowledge about variations in the patterning of privacy across society, and public policy is therefore less precisely focused than it could be.

To the extent that an examination of the distribution of privacy risks and protections might identify particularly vulnerable social groups, their privacy might be enhanced by clearer knowledge amongst their representative pressure groups, adding strength to the activities of general civil liberties groups or privacy advocates, and affecting the political processes through which privacy protection is arbitrated. A perennial difficulty for privacy advocates and organisations such as ‘Privacy International’ is the need to build a coalition on the very disparate issues to which new surveillance practices give rise. However, there are many conceptual and empirical difficulties in gaining a purchase on the topic. Not least is the problem of understanding and evaluating risk.

The present article explores further some issues that were broached earlier (Raab, 1995). Portions of that discussion are first restated and elaborated. Next, the article explains and criticises the invisibility of equity issues in data protection, and explores the image of the ‘data subject’ with a view to its reconceptualisation. In order to gain a closer purchase on the question of distribution, illustrations are cited from the growing body of survey research on privacy which casts light on public attitudes towards, and knowledge of, privacy risks and privacy protection. The article then looks at the question of risk in order to seek further points of orientation for grasping the main issues, but reaches no optimistic conclusion about the possibility of a ‘scientific’ determination of privacy risks that is independent of subjective perceptions.

AUTHOR
Robyn F. Brothers

ABSTRACT

Current debates surrounding liberalism and comminitarianism, modernity and postmodernity, ethical theory and narrative ethics fail to account for shifting foundations of personal identity in an increasingly computer-mediated era of human communication. This paper ais to examine some of the conceptual assumptions about identity and community which are being radically undermined by rapidly evolving information networks and are therefore in need of redefinition. The concept of co-authored fiction sites where exploration of personal identity will bear upon future ethical and political decision making.

AUTHOR
Emma Rooksby and Diarmuid Pigott

PUBLISHED IN
ETHICOMP Journal Vol 1 Issue 1

ABSTRACT

In this paper we present a holistic alternative to the conventional ground of existent ethical discourse on the Internet. We analyse this discourse and the model of the ‘net and netizens from which it is derived, and finding it unsatisfactory, present a discourse of co-operative ethics, based on a model of the Internet as a Noetic Hyper Entity. We then examine the tradition of such entities in Western Philosophy, and decide which of three traditions (the Pre-existent, the Emergent and the Convocational) is suited to our discussion. Finally we make suggestions as to how awareness of this entity can provide incentive to act co-operatively, and concluding that the existent form of Netiquette is the best model for appropriate behaviour on the net.

AUTHOR
Dag Elgesem

ABSTRACT

The paper discusses the ethical issues raised by decisions to deny access to some discussion groups on the internet, like alt.sex.bondage. The central thesis of the paper is that it is possible to regulate such access without getting into conflict with the values that justifies freedom of expression on campus. The question whether it is right to restrict access to certain internet services has to be considered not only in the light of norms that are internal to ‘cybersocity’. The norms of the institution which provide the service, i.e. the university in this case, must also be taken into account. It is then pointed out that the norms of interaction in cyberspace and those of the scientific community are very similar. Various strategies for the justification of freedom of speech are discussed and applied to the context of the university. It is argued that while the university has a duty to protect the freedom of argued positions, it also has a duty to foster other values in its students, like tolerance and the value of argumentation and intellectual honesty. Both the value of free speech and the value of tolerance and argumentation can be protected, it is argued. The university should allow all points of view that are defended by open arguments, but deny those that are offensive by virtue of their form.

AUTHOR
Chris Moon and Celia Stanworth

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the development of flexible working practices in the United Kingdom (UK) and focuses on implications for teleworking in particular. The main premise of the paper is that if the distribution of electronic work is achieved on short-term, cost-benefit, principles only (teleological) then this poses threats to the labour process in the longer term i.e. that skills will be eroded and there will be little incentive for employers and employees to acquire more than specific task related skills. To avoid this paradox of Information Technology (IT), the humane use of IT will need to become a priority for the management of work (deontological perspective) i.e. the duties of employers and the rights of employees must be considered more fully. This paper discusses the human resource implications of telework in the UK and refers to developments in Continental Europe and the USA.

AUTHOR
Andrew Calcutt

ABSTRACT

Cyberbabble about infotopia is now being outstripped by hysteria over the alleged dangers of the Internet. Such inconsistency is in keeping with today’s incoherent society, in which ideological certainties are no longer extant, and traditional networks of social solidarity have broken down.

Most people respond to the confusions of contemporary experience by attempting to establish limits and constraints. Safety is the most valuable commodity in what has become kown as the postmodern condition. But the ensuing atmosphere is best described as a culture of fear, with growing numbers of people trapped in an increasingly dependant relationship with a new form of maternalistic authority.