AUTHOR
Jeroen van den Hoven

ABSTRACT

The ideas of John Rawls on the principles of social justice have dominated normative political theory, moral philosophy and applied ethics since the publication of his monumental A Theory of Justice in 1971. His seminal work, and the literature to which it has given rise, has branched to cover virtually all issues relevant to design of a just and fair society with freedom and equal opportunities for all. It has been applied to health care, education, social security, tax law, and a still increasing number of other sectors.

However, an overwhelming majority of moral philosophers working along Rawlsian lines of inquiry seem to have missed the point that by designing artefacts, such as information systems and information infrastructures, technology is a force in shaping human possiblities or determining human destiny on an equal footing with educational programs and tax systems. It also seems to have escaped their attention that Information Technology has become a paramount feature of the objects of their studies in healthcare, education, science, business, government, and politics. Information Technology has become part and parcel of the tools which society uses to regulate and steer itself and its component parts.

The aim of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice was to lay down the principles of justice to guid the design of the basic instituitions of society. He arrived at the following principles:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The ‘inequalities’, and the least advantaged mentioned in the second principle are to be individuated in terms of so-called ‘primary goods’, or the basic things people require, ‘all purpose’ goods.

I will argue that information or access to data relevant to one’s legitimate purposes in life qualify as Rawlsian primary goods and that the principles of justice Rawls arrived at, apply to the distribution of access to information. Furthermore I will suggest two principles of justice for systems development, data-base design and reflection on the shape of information infra-structures.

AUTHOR:

Elizabeth France

ABSTRACT:

The purpose of language is communication. Its imprecision can stimulate debate, lead to misunderstandings or create barriers. In a post like mine it is important that the public should understand what I and my Office can do. I am the Information Commissioner.

• What does data mean?
• Why does it need protecting?
• Is the keeping of a register (and a register of what?) my primary task?

Data

It is useful to begin with the Oxford English Dictionary definition which shows it as the plural of datum meaning: “A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation.

Then section 1(2) of the Data Protection Act elaborates this stating that “data” means information recorded in a form the can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose.

Note that there is no mention here of computers.

The key is that the information must be in a form that allows it to be automatically processed. It is a defintion which is not technology specific. That has been helpful in allowing legislation that is ten years old to remain relevant as information processing has changed. My Office has always seen the defintion as applying to sound and image – to tape recordings and video records. Scanned pictures and information on smart chips must also be embraced.

But, although my title gives no hint of this, the Act only bites on ‘Personal Data’. That means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information (or from that and other information in the possession of the data user) including any expression of opinion about the individual but not any indication of the intention of the data user in respect of that individual (section 1(3) of the Act).

The EC Directive on Data Protection, now before the European Parliament, defines ‘personal data’ at Atricle 2 as: “any information relating to an indentified or identifiable natural person (“data subject”); an identifiable person is one who ca be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity”.

Protection?
In the terms of the Data Protection Act, data only needs protecting to protect the individual it describes. It is important to ensure that this emphasis is understood. It is an Act born of the European Convention – Treaty 108. Respect for private life makes privacy (and so protection) of information important.

Registrar?
Yes, I am a Registrar, I am obliged by statute to keep a register of all ‘legal persons’ who process personal data – data users. Article 4 says what that Register should contain. But that should not be the entire – even the primary focus. Registration is the first hurdle, but it is the eight principles which bring my task and your focus together. The eight principles together provide a code which is capable of creating an information handling culture that recognises the power of automatic processing and the risks to individuals if personal information is handled in a cavalier, unthinking or unethical manner. They are carried forward into the EC Directive and are worthy of your consideration as you look more broadly at the ethical questions raised by changing technology.

AUTHOR:
Jacques Berleur

PUBLISHED IN:
Science and Engineering Ethics, (1996) 2, 2, pp 155-165

ABSTRACT:
This paper reviews codes of ethics and codes of conduct from different countries. The differences and similarities between code content and between attitudes are considered. Distinction is drawn between a code of ethics and a code of conduct. Recommendations are made for establishing a common framework for IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) Member or Affiliate Societies.

Author:
Walter Maner

Published in:
Science and Engineering Ethics, (1996) 2, 2, pp 137-154

ETHICOMP Journal Vol 1 Issue 1

ABSTRACT:

A distinction is made between moral indoctrination and instruction in ethics. It is argued that the legitimate and important field of computer ethics should not be permitted to become mere moral indoctrination. Computer ethics is an academic field in its own right with unique ethical issues that would not have existed if computer technology had not been invented. Several example issues are presented to illustrate this point. The failure to find satisfactory non-computer analogies testifies to the uniqueness of computer ethics. Lack of an effective analogy forces us to discover new moral values, formulate new moral principles, develop new policies, and find new ways to think about the issues presented to us. For all of these reasons, the kind of issues presented deserve to be addressed separately from others that might at first appear similar. At the very least, they have been so transformed by computing technology that their altered form demands special attention.

LOCATION:
Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca en Madrid, Spain

DATE:
06 – 08 November 1996

HOSTED BY:
Facultad de Informatica Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca en Madrid
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

CONFERENCE CHAIR:
Professor Porfirio Barroso, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain

CONFERENCE DIRECTORS:
Professor Terrell Ward Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Professor Luis Joyanes, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca in Madrid, Spain
Simon Rogerson, De Montfort University, UK

CONFERENCE ADMINISTRATOR:
Maria Angeles Nevado

SPONSORS:

• Ministerio de Educación Cultura
• Facltad de Ciencias de la Inforación
• Universidad Complutense de Madrid
• Universidad San Pablo CEU
• Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid
• Banco Central Hispano
• El Corte Inglés
• Mapfre
• IBM

Continue reading “ETHICOMP1996 – Madrid, Spain”

LOCATION:
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

DATES:
28 – 30 March 1995

CONFERENCE DIRECTORS:
Terrell Ward Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Simon Rogerson, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

PAPER ABSTRACT LISTING:

Keynote Speakers

• “The Unique Ethical Problems in Information Technology” by Walter Maner
• “IFIP Framework for Computer Ethics” by Jacques Berleur
• “Data Privacy and the European Union” by Elizabeth France

Accepted Abstracts

• “Ethical decision making in information technology” by Terrell Ward Bynum and Simon Rogerson
• “Equal access and social justice: information as a primary good” by Jeroen van den Hoven
• “Participatory design, communicative reason and discourse ethics” by M W J Spaul
• “Health informaticians’ deontology code (HIDEC)” by Porfirio Barroso
• “Technological choices about data and analysis packages for meta-analysis” by Chris Brown Mahoney
• “Data protection and limits of centralised risk assessment” by Dag Elgesem
• “The ethical and social context of computing into the computer science curriculum” by Jecek Sojka, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland.
• “Computer ethics and geography: an eastern European perspective” by Andrzej Kocikowski
• “The computer revolution and the problem of global ethics” by Krystyna Górniak-Kocikowska
• “Deskilling (1974-1994): 20 years after – in the era of empowerment” by Niki Panteli, Martin Corbett
• “The firm and the guild: a perspective on the future of knowledge work and information technology” by Marc Demarest
• “Computer ethics committees: the way forward?” by Duncan Langford
• “Ethical and social issues of the Internet” by Richard G Platt and Bruce Morrison
• “The end of the good times” by Simon G Davies
• “Integrating the ethical and social context of computing into the CS curriculum” by Chuck Huff, Ronald E Anderson, Joyce C Little, Deborah Johnson, Rob Kling, C D Martin, and Keith Miller.
• “A call for a statement of expectations for the global information infrastructure” by Frank W Connolly
• “The case for a Hippocratic oath for information systems professionals” by Mary Prior
• “Ethical implications of computer technology for librarians” by Paul Sturges, C Pritchett, and B Scully
• “Analysing ethical scenarios” by Blaise W Liffick
• “Overcoming rivalling interests in systems development” by Seppo Visala
• “Multimedia content and the super highway: rapid accelerator or foot on the brake?” by Fred Greguras, Michael R Egger and Sandy J Wong
• “Teleworking: a place for the introvert?” by David N Wilson and Jim Underwood
• “Net-Lash” by Andrew Calcutt
• “Software licensing flexibility complements the digital age” by Fred Greguras and Sandy J Wong
• “Computer science ethics and Informatics’ deontology abstracts” by Porfirio Barroso