AUTHOR
Maslin Masrom, Zuraini Ismail, Ramlah Hussein and Norshidah Mohamed

ABSTRACT

Theoretical Foundation and Conceptualization

Nowadays, in the society, ethical issues are important in the information technology (IT) area, and facing with ethical issues is inevitable. Since humankind live together, it is not possible to live without rules and regulation as what a person must do and what he or she may not do (Boyle, 2002). In general, ethics helps us to live peacefully in the society. While use of information and computer technology (ICT) is being used in all areas of business, industry and education sectors, and general public, the chance for unethical use or abuse of this technology is also increased. Examples of unethical use are infraction of privacy, unauthorized access, creation of virus and worms, security breaches, and software piracy.

In recent era, firms spend a big amount of budget on preventive measures, for example computer-related security (i.e. security tools and policies). Since this is a human problem, ethical behavior by individuals should be warned to computer-related abuse (Henry & Pierce, 1994). Ethical decision making is a process which can be affected by individual’s environment (such as societal environment, belief system, personal environment, personal values, professional environment, legal environment, and business environment). Studies of ethical decision making in an IT context generally search in two directions (Haines & Leonard, 2007). First, the studies focus on examining demographic and personality styles of individuals, and second focuses on the process of ethical decision-making to find beliefs and attitudes that lead to unethical behavior.

The Internet has proliferated into everywhere in the world, and become an essential tool of the people lives. Shaw (2003) explains the relationship between ethics and privacy through the advancement of ICT and internet technologies in the world as following:

“Despite this pervasiveness, there is a downside to using the web. The web has transformed computer mediated communication into computer mediated behavior. Each action generates messages that can be captured, stored, used, and shared by the organizations and individuals who manage web servers. As a result the web allows for behavior to be tracked both broadly and precisely, making it possible to compile detailed, intimate profiles of individuals. These profiles can in turn be used in any number of ways that affect the lives of their subjects, so the electronic footprints we leave as we use the web have the potential to threaten individual privacy at an unprecedented level.”

Recently, privacy is one of the most important component of information security field, and also has become an important ethical issue for computer ethics. In this era, file sharing websites became very common, and there are many unethical issues occurred related to infraction of privacy right. Haines and Leonard (2007) state that ethical behavioral intentions and privacy should be investigated in relation to changes in IT. Therefore, in order to comprehend why privacy is important for ethical issues, previous studies on privacy are examined.

In this study, the related research theories and models for decision making and privacy are presented and discussed. Among the related research theories and models cover in this study:

• Henry and Pierce’s Model (Henry & Pierce, 1994)
• Loch and Conger’s Model (Loch & Conger, 1996)
• Goles, White, Beebe, Dorantes and Hewitt’s Model (Goles et al., 2006)
• Haines and Leonard’s Model (Haines & Leonard, 2007)

Also, moral development encompasses of six components of moral intensity, general moral imperative, moral reasoning and six-stage process of ethical decision making are described in this paper.

This paper also propose the conceptual framework for determining the relationship between ethical decision making and privacy. The conceptual framework is depicted in Fig.1.

Concepts definitions are given in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Definition of Concepts

An important contribution of this paper is the integration of theories and models of ethical decision making and privacy.
Research Approach, Research Methodology and Nature of Data

This study is in relation to qualitative research approach. The data, for this kind of study, consists of former scientific literature. As for the former scientific literature, we look through academic writings, such as refereed articles and books. Other publicly reachable materials are also considered, such as bulletins, web pages, newspaper and magazines. These approaches will further develop other future investigations.

REFERENCES

Boyle, E.J. (2002). An Ethical Decision Making Process for Computing Professionals, Ethics and Information Technology, 4, pp. 267-277.

Goles, T., White, G.B., Beebe, N., Dorantes, C.A., & Hewitt, B. (2006). Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making: A Contextual Extension, The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 37, pp. 2-3.

Haines, R. & Leonard, L.N.K. (2007). Individual Characteristics and Ethical Decision-Making in an IT Context, Industrial Management and Data, 107 (1), pp. 5-20.

Henry, J. W. & Pierce, M.A. (1994). Computer Ethics: A Model of Influences on the Individual’s Ethical Decision Making, Computer Personnel, October, pp. 21-27.

Loch, K.D. & Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating Ethical Decision Making and Computer Use, Communications of the ACM, 39 (7), July, pp. 74-83.

Shaw, T.R. (2003). The Moral Intensity of Privacy: An Empirical Study of Webmaster’s Attitudes, Journal of Business Ethics, 46, pp. 301-318.

AUTHOR
Stephen Lilley, Ph.D., Andra Gumbus, Ed.D. and Frances S. Grodzinsky, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

We who study and teach computer ethics are familiar with what matters to experts regarding software property rights and privacy rights in cyberspace. For example, we know that Richard Stallman cares most about maximum dissemination of software for social benefit. He favors free software over protected software because the former is unencumbered (Stallman, 1992). We also know that experts representing the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) care most about profit from intellectual property and, accordingly, favor strong copyright provisions and enforcement. Stallman and the RIAA stake diametric absolutist positions: Software should be free or protected regardless of the author, the application utility, the economic system, the user intent, etc. For them, specific circumstances do not matter. Helen Nissenbaum (2001 & 2004) has recommended sensitivity to contingent elements both in terms of property and privacy. For her, the details of the case or social context do matter. Her contexts are similar to the “situations” found in James Moor’s (2004) privacy theory.

In her article, “Privacy As Contextual Integrity,” Nissenbaum (2004) explicitly promotes a context-relative approach. She notes that social contexts are governed by norms of appropriateness and norms of distribution in regard to the flow of information. For example, it is appropriate for a close friend or physician (in a healthcare context) to probe about one’s health and emotional state but if a salesperson did this within the context of shopping one would treat it as a violation of privacy. She proposes that “information gathering and dissemination be appropriate to that context and obey the governing norms of distribution within it.” (101)

Research Question

Given that ethical issues concerning privacy and property affect all users, the authors decided to conduct an exploratory study on the non-expert’s attitude about property and privacy rights. Are they absolutists or context-relativists? Are there contextual norms or conditions that matter to them? We pay attention to the experts because they help shape the social debate from “above” by means of conceptualization, rhetorical argumentation, and policy recommendation. Nevertheless, non-experts are not without influence–they shape the social debate by their decisions and actions at the ground level through their roles as students, consumers, and employees (see Buchanan (2004) and Gotterbarn (1995).

Research Study

Our investigation constitutes one part of an international study of college students conducted in the 2008-2009 academic year, of which we were co-sponsors. Although this was a multi-site study (USA, UK), we limit our report to the data collected from our site in the United States. Students were asked to respond using a Likert scale (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree) to approximately 20 computer ethics scenarios based on property and privacy issues. In some instances two scenarios were the same except for one twist, for example, the acceptability of making unauthorized copies of commercial software for private use and the acceptability of making unauthorized copies of commercial software for university work. We analyzed responses to this and other pairs to determine whether or not subjects care about context variables such as private use/university work and also for-profit/non-profit making (using university computing facilities), permission/no permission (using other people’s passwords), and consent & knowledge/without consent & knowledge (under surveillance). Context sensitivity was operationalized as selecting different values for a pair (e.g., agree to private use and disagree to university work).

Summary of Findings

Forty-six percent of a total of 251 respondents demonstrated context sensitivity to the private use/university work difference and 53% to for-profit/non-profit making. Sixty-five percent were sensitive to permission/no permission and 85% to consent & knowledge/without consent & knowledge. This finding supports Nissenbaum’s claims for the significance of norms of appropriateness and distribution. On average, women and students under the age of 25 were more context sensitive than men and older students.

REFERENCES

Buchanan, E. (2004) “Ethical Considerations for the Information Professions”, In R.A. Spinello and H. T. Tavani, eds. Readings in CyberEthics. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 523-534.

Gotterbarn, D. (1995) “Computer Ethics: Responsibility Regained” In D. Johnson and H.Nissenbaum, eds. Computing, Ethics and Social Values. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 18-24

Moor, J. H. (2004) “Towards a Theory of Privacy for the Information Age.” In R.A. Spinello and H. T. Tavani, eds. Readings in CyberEthics. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2004, 407-417.

Nissenbaum, Helen (2001) “Should I copy My Neighbor’s Software?” In D.M. Hester and P. Ford, eds., Computers and Ethics in the Cyberage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 297-307.

Nissenbaum, Helen (2004) “Privacy As Contextual Integrity.” Washington Law Review, Vol. 79 (1), pp. 101-139.

Stallman, Richard (1992) “Why Software Should Be Free.” http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html. Accessed July 19, 2006.

Warren, Samuel and Louis Brandeis (1890) “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 14 (5), pp. 193-220.

AUTHOR
Mike Leigh

ABSTRACT

The use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) to enhance the student higher education experience has continued to grow during the last decade. There has also been a corresponding growth in publications and conferences pertaining to their usage. The main focus of this work has been towards technological and pedagogical concerns with ethical issues being addressed to a much smaller extent. However, a range of ethical aspects, significant to VLEs, have been identified and discussed [McRobb and Stahl, 2007; Brey, 2004; Pearson and Koppi, 2006]. Research specifically addressing students’ attitudes towards the use of VLEs exists but is less common [Stahl, 2002].

This paper, firstly, identifies a range of ethical issues that are of relevance to students’ day-to-day usage of VLEs in their studies. Secondly, it discusses the results of an investigation into the levels of awareness and the attitudes of students to the ethical dimensions of VLE usage. This is distinct from much of the previous work that has been undertaken which address the ethical issues of VLEs from an institutional perspective, for example, Jefferies et al, (2007); Jones and Conole (2006), or those that include VLE usage as part of a broader study [Grodzinsky, et al, 2008; Prior, 2004; and Leigh and Prior, 2008].

A literature survey was undertaken which, together with the questionnaire results of a previous investigation into VLE usage [Leigh, 2006], was used to ascertain a range of ethical concerns pertaining to Higher Education, in general, and the use of VLEs in particular. Focus groups [Bryman, 2008] were employed in order to explore the students’ awareness of the ethical issues identified and their attitude towards them. Participants of these groups were chosen whose profile represented a cross-section of the divergent backgrounds of the university students including gender, age, ethnicity and particular learning requirements. This included the perspective of an unsighted student.

The ethical concerns explored in the focus groups included access to the VLE and to the learning activities within them; students’ expectations of behaviour when participating in such activities; the impact of VLEs on student learning styles; and privacy issues associated with their use of the VLE.

This paper addresses the findings from the focus group discussions which highlighted some interesting ethical gaps in the students’ awareness of issues pertaining to their VLE usage. For example, with regards to access to VLE materials and learning exercises the students’ awareness and attitude was largely governed by their own personal experience. If they had not faced access problems they were generally “not bothered” by potential inequality of access. Not surprisingly the converse of this was the case with the unsighted student. Similar attitudes and levels of awareness were seen around the issues of student behaviour when undertaking group learning activities and also around issues of privacy. However, in these cases students tended to have stronger opinions when they were affected by an issue.

It is clear from this study that there is an apparent ethical gap within the mindset of these students when using the VLE for their studies. It is perceptible that VLEs have been adopted to help enhance the student experience without sufficient attention being paid to ensuring that students are equipped to utilise such facilities in an ethical way. It would seem that although a subset of ethical issues are dealt with proactively by institutions, many ethical dilemmas are not addressed until something happens. This conclusion has been seen in other aspects of institutional VLE usage such as with online monitoring of staff and student activities [Leigh and Prior, 2008]. The implications of this shortfall are explored in this paper.

REFERENCES

Brey, P. (2004) Ethical issues for the Virtual University, Proceedings of the seventh international ETHICOMP conference, Syros, Greece, 14-16 April 2004

Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.

Grodzinsky, F. S. Lilley, S. & Gumbus, A. 2008. Ethical implication of internet monitoring: a comparative study. Proceedings of the tenth international ETHICOMP conference, Mantua, Italy, September 2008

Jeffries, P, Stahl, B. C. & McRobb, S (2007): “Exploring the Relationships between Pedagogy, Ethics & Technology: Building a Framework for Strategy Development” In: Technology, Pedagogy and Education (16:1), 111 – 126

Jones, C. and Conole, G. (2006) Who will own the new VLE?: sharing practice, problems and alternative solutions, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ascilite Conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology?

Leigh, M. (2006) “Pedagogic Underpinning in the use of Virtual Learning Environments” DMU e-Learning Symposium, Leicester 5 May 2006

Leigh, M. and Prior, M. (2008) Multi-layered monitoring in virtual learning environments: filling the policy vacuum, Proceedings of the tenth international ETHICOMP conference, Mantua, Italy, September 2008

McRobb, S & Stahl, B. C. (2007): “Privacy as a Shared Feature of the e-Phenomenon: A Comparison of Privacy Policies in e-Government, e-Commerce and e-Teaching” International Journal of Information Technology and Management, Special Issue on “Making Sense of the E-Phenomenon”, edited by Feng Li, 232 – 249

Pearson, E. and Koppi, T. (2006) A pragmatic and strategic approach to supporting staff in inclusive practices for on-line learning, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ascilite Conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology?

Prior, M. (2004) Surveillance-capable technologies in the workplace: some evidence of the views of the next generation of computer professionals. ETHICOMP 2004, Syros, Greece, 14-16 April 2004.

Stahl, Bernd Carsten [2002] Ethics and e-teaching: the students’ perspective. Communications of the IIMA, vol. 2 [no. 3], 51-62.

AUTHOR
Paul B. de Laat

ABSTRACT

Open source communities are spreading from software to other kinds of informational content. Reference works are a growing domain, with Wikipedia, the web based encyclopaedia, being the most prominent example. The OSS approach is followed closely here: everybody is invited to contribute and wiki software is used that allows collaboration by multiple parties across the Internet. Thus, an amazing feature of such communities is the amount of a priori trust that is put in total strangers emerging from cyberspace.

This particular domain of web based collaboration is an interesting field of research on the matter of trust and trustworthiness, while in practice several widely different approaches towards it have crystallized. For one thing, encyclopaedic efforts (like Citizendium, Scholarpedia and Wikipedia) exhibit remarkable differences between them in this respect. For another, within existing projects fierce discussions take place about the proper ways of handling this matter, particularly within Wikipedia.

Attention will be focussed upon ‘organizational’ means of coping with (lack of) trust: rules and regulations that channel incoming contributions. Such regulations may substitute for assuming trustworthiness on the part of participants; as a result, less trustworthiness is needed (cf. de Laat 2009). An important dimension of such ‘community design’ is the distinction between several roles: permissions granted to perform specific activities upon specific resources within the project. Let me briefly indicate some distinctions in use (‘editorial policies’). In Wikipedia, everybody without exception may directly contribute to entries that already exist (‘anonymous user’); upon registration, one may additionally add new entries (‘registered user’). In a project like Citizendium however (and equally so in Scholarpedia), policies are more restrictive: everyone may contribute (as an ‘author’), but acceptance of edits has to come from appointed ‘editors’ who oversee the development of the article involved and approve the subsequent versions. This variety in editorial policies can be described in terms of high-discretion vs. low-discretion designs (de Laat 2009).

At the same time, editorial policy is under heavy dispute within Wikipedia, both within and between the various language versions. At issue is the rise of ‘vandalism’ towards entries, and the threat this poses to Wikipedia reliability. The solution is sought in reviewing user contributions before incorporating them in the ‘stable version’ of entries. It would involve introducing more roles and layers within the encyclopaedic project, a distinct deviation from the egalitarian approach followed until now. In doing so Wikipedia would move towards a design with lower discretion, and so closer in conception to Citizendium, Scholarpedia and the like. This is not only under discussion: it has already led to a separation of ways. The German Wikipedia has adopted a review system in 2008 (with other language versions from Eastern Europe following in their footsteps), while the English Wikipedia remains vehemently against it.

Just like in OSS these design differences have to do with different conceptions of how an encyclopaedic project should be run efficiently. But at the same time, unlike the case of OSS, there is more to it: different conceptions of the role of experts and expertise also play a role. On the one hand, classical conceptions on this issue would start from a belief in knowledge as web of mutually accepted and verified meanings. In that web, experts perform a prominent role as guarantors of quality. In the set-up of a web based encyclopaedia this conception translates into certified experts as the hub for all decisions about incoming contributions. Experts adopt certain entries or fields as a whole, and steer and guard their proper development. Notice that reputation as an expert is acquired in the real world, and then imported into the virtual web based environment. Such a conception supports a design of lower discretion. Connected to this, screening for one’s credentials as an expert is common procedure for becoming a contributor. This conception, it will be argued, is dominant in Citizendium and Scholarpedia

On the other hand, more ‘egalitarian’ conceptions see knowledge as ‘distributed knowledge’: everybody is – or can be – an expert in his/her own ways. Every contribution is equal – until proven otherwise after lengthy discussions. As long as people of good intentions outnumber those of ill intentions, valid knowledge may be generated (as argued by, e.g., Cass Sunstein). Therefore an egalitarian approach is demanded from the outset. A design with a higher amount of discretion is indicated. Moreover, screening of participants is deemed unnecessary. This conception, it will be argued, is characteristic for the Wikipedia project.

Above it was observed that a ‘third way’ was developing within Wikipedia circles: a middle-discretion kind of design allowing review of contributions. It would seem that underlying these developments are not only arguments about efficiency but also about the proper role of experts. It will be argued that in a furtive fashion some conception of reputation is emerging within Wikipedia, in conjunction with systems for measuring such reputation.

Let us look at the German Wikipedia. In those circles the number of performed ‘edits’ becomes increasingly valuable. This score may translate into extra user rights. At 300 edits or more, one obtains rights to review changes made by other contributors and declare them free of vandalism. At 3000 edits or more, one obtains ‘auto-review’ rights, meaning that one’s own contributions are exempt from review. So in a crude way, by accumulating edits, some sort of reputation is acquired.

In a more sophisticated vein, software has been developed for gauging inside Wikipedia reputations. A content-driven algorithm that keeps track of the rate of change in – fragments of – text has been developed by Luca de Alfaro and co-workers (Adler and Alfaro 2007). Whenever edits performed by some contributor remain unchanged, his reputation will grow; and vice versa, when his edits are undone later, his reputation will diminish. Based on this idea – and with some more nuances added – reputations of Wikipedia contributors can be calculated on a continuous basis. It has been proposed – but not yet implemented – to use this measure for e.g. reviewing systems (only edits from contributors of low reputation needing to be flagged) and for protecting controversial articles (by barring contributors of low reputation only).

This emerging – and highly debatable – conception of expertise is noteworthy for at least 3 reasons. First, it seems to refer exclusively to the virtual world: only what happens inside Wikipedia counts. Secondly, it is ‘content-driven’: reputation is tied to whether one’s contributions remain unchanged or not. Co-Wikipedians ‘vote’, as it were, for one’s contributions by overruling them or not. This is quite different from the usual personal ratings by one’s peers. A third difference follows immediately: one acquires a reputation in general, as ‘honourable’ Wikipedian – not as concerns one (or more) specific fields of investigation. The implications of this new conception of expertise deserve a thorough investigation.

REFERENCES

Adler, B.T. and L. de Alfaro. A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia. In WWW 2007, Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference, ACM Press, 2007.

De Laat, Paul B. Trusting invisible strangers in open source communities: About the assumption, inference and substitution of trust. Proceedings CEPE 2009, Corfu, pp. 158-180.

Various relevant websites such as:
en.citizendium.org; knol.google.com; www.scholarpedia.org; wikipedia.org (in various languages).

AUTHOR
Mary Prior and Mike Leigh

ABSTRACT

Context

Over the past decade there have been several studies into the ethical attitudes of IS professionals [Prior et al, 2002, 2005]. Studies have also been undertaken that include the views of university students in the UK [Prior, 2004, Prior et al 2008] and in the USA [Grozinsky et al, 2008]. Some of survey instruments used in the studies covered a wide range of computer ethics issues, and were originally designed to be administered to IS professionals before subsequently being used with student subjects. Other survey instruments were designed explicitly to be used with students, but covered only a restricted range of ethical issues. This paper reports a study using a survey instrument explicitly targeted at university students of IS/IT, covering a range of ethical issues. It is also distinguished from previous work in being part of a co-ordinated study across three countries: the UK, USA and Canada.

Research Design

The paper will report the results of a study using a combination of questionnaire and structured interviews. A questionnaire was used as an efficient method of ascertaining the views of a large number of students; structured interviews were used to follow up particular issues raised by the questionnaire results, to probe in more depth the reasons for particular responses [Bryman, 2008].

The questionnaire was based on a survey instrument used in previous studies [e.g. Prior et al 2005]. It presents a series of statements to which the respondent indicates the strength of their agreement/disagreement using a five-point Likert Scale. A process of negotiation was used with collaborating partners to arrive at a set of statements tailored for the study subjects: university students. For example, a new set of statements concerning the use of social networking sites was introduced. Finally, the agreed questionnaire was contextualised at each site to take into account local cultural and/or institutional differences.

The profile of respondents differs in some respects between each of the three geographical sites taking part in the collaborative study. This paper reports responses from students at a UK university. Responses were sought from second and final year undergraduate groups and a postgraduate group. Students were studying on a variety of IT-related courses; the majority were under 25 but some mature students were represented, as were both male and female students. They came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, with the postgraduate group including a larger proportion of students from outside the UK.

After the questionnaires had been administered they were submitted to a collaborating colleague with statistical expertise and process using a statistical package. The results were analysed and interpreted to identify issues worthy of being followed up in greater depth in the structured interviews.

At the time of preparing this abstract, the structured interviews are not complete; however from the work completed to date some comments can be made on the findings.

Findings

Students appear to hold some views that are worthy of further scrutiny. For example nearly 50% of them agree or strongly agree that it is acceptable to make unauthorised copies of software to use for their university work. As many as 67% say it is acceptable to use the university’s facilities for their own non-profit-making activities. Some 20% do not care about the overall objectives or purpose of a systems development project, so long as it provides them with an interesting challenge – an another 25% are indifferent.

Behind the overall figures lie some interesting differences. On some issues, there is a clear difference between the 2nd and final year cohorts, with the latter showing evidence of more ethical awareness. On others, it is the responses of the postgraduate group that differ from the undergraduates. It is possible that on the one hand, the final year students have had more time and experience (most of them have worked for a year in industry as a part of their course) to develop their views; in addition, they may have had their attitudes further developed by undertaking a computer ethics module. On the other, there may be cultural factors at work when it comes to the postgraduate students, many of whom are from the Middle East. These are some of the issues to be pursued in the structured interviews.

Conclusion

This paper is a part of an ongoing series of studies into the ethical attitudes of IS professionals, and of students of IS/IT. It differs from previous surveys in being specifically targeted at university students, and being a part of a collaborative study.

The findings are considered important as it explores some of the developing attitudes of tomorrow’s IS professionals. If it is desirable to ensure that the IS professionals of the future adopt an ethical approach to their work, it is important to gain an understanding of how that approach may best be formed and enhanced. To what extent does the studying of a computer ethics module help in the formation of a professional, ethical approach to IS/IT related work? This and its sister studies will help to find an answer to that question.

REFERENCES

Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.

Grodzinsky, F. S. Lilley, S. & Gumbus, A. 2008. Ethical implication of internet monitoring: a comparative study. ETHICOMP 2008, University of Pavia, Mantova, Italy, 24-26 Septebmer 2008.

Prior, M. (2004) Surveillance-capable technologies in the workplace: some evidence of the views of the next generation of computer professionals. ETHICOMP 2004, Syros, Greece, 14-16 April 2004.

Prior, M. Fairweather, N.B. Rogerson, S, Dave, K. 2005. Is IT Ethical? 2004 ETHICOMP Survey of Professional Practice. IMIS.

Prior, M. Rogerson, S & Fairweather, N. B. 2008. Exploring motivations for surprising views about ethical issues in Information Systems. ETHICOMP 2008, University of Pavia, Mantova, Italy, 24-26 September 2008.

Prior, M. Rogerson, R. & Fairweather, B. 2002. The ethical attitudes of information systems professionals: outcomes of an initial survey. Telematics and Informatics, vol. 19 (1), 21-36.

AUTHOR
Andrzej Kocikowski

ABSTRACT

Due to almost 30 years of research conducted by many scholars, including numerous participants in the ETHICOMP conferences, the thesis that the tele-information revolution changed – and it is still changing – all (broadly understood) life processes on earth is well documented.

Nevertheless, there is one fundamental question regarding the impact of the tele-information revolution that still remains open. It is the question of the general theoretic analysis of the capitalist system at its present stage of development (e.g., global economy, the world market). Most importantly, this system needs to be analyzed in light of profound changes that occurred in the area of the productiveness of labor. As is well known, these changes result directly from the technological development and indirectly from the development of scientific research. They are also an indirect result of the tele-information revolution and this revolution, in turn, determines the effectiveness of the process of the production of knowledge.

One may ask, what could change in the capitalist system as a result of the revolutionary change in the collective productiveness of labor?

Before attempting to answer this question, I would like to bring up some rather obvious reminders. A very important component in nearly all production processes is knowledge. It is well known that today knowledge can be generated in basically the same way as the majority of other technically and technologically advanced products. One uses capital to finance the construction and equipment of laboratories; one hires scientists and after some time – as in any other business – one receives the product. This product can be a technical or technological solution to an existing problem; a new technology; new materials to be used for the production of goods; or it can be a plant or chemical or anything else; sometimes, this product is ‘pure theory.’ This product is then sold to order; or it is offered on the market like any other merchandise.

The production of knowledge can be more profitable a business than, for instance, the production of steel or coal mining. In this case, not surprisingly, the capital will move away from the production of raw materials towards the more profitable production of knowledge. Governments can guide this process using rational financial policies, immigration laws, and the like. The actions of the government of the United States can serve as a good case in point here.

The knowledge needed for the production of what people need or want is diverse. These diversity results in part from a variety of ways in which the products created with the use of knowledge can be applied. Another very important factor leading to the diversification of the status and value of knowledge is the significance of a particular knowledge (or technology) for the economy and for broadly understood interests of the country on which territory and with whose money this knowledge has been created. Herein, among others, lies the source of the importance of patent regulations and legal rules, which those who have power use for maintaining the exclusive use of a selected technology, and who even are willing to violate the rights of individuals, nations, and international conventions to obtain this goal.

***

Hardly anyone challenges the view anymore that some to the most obvious characteristics of today’s stage in the world’s economic development are the globalization of business ventures undertaken by corporations and super-corporations, as well as an unheard-of concentration of capital. These two phenomena are the result of decades-long, complex actions in the areas of economy, science, and politics.

The progressing concentration of capital is an immanent feature of the entire capitalist economy; this includes the production of knowledge. Several features immanent to the capitalist system may overlap. For instance (to name but a few):

• The above mentioned tremendous concentration of capital;
• The migration of capital to the knowledge producing branches (mentioned earlier);
• The desire to control the fundamental (strategic) branches of production.

As a result of such an overlap, the global process of the production of knowledge is dominated by individuals and organizations (state-owned as well as private) who control immense capital and who are clustered together in particular geographic areas (e.g., United States, Russia, parts of Europe).

***

We return now to the question asked earlier: What could change in the capitalist system as a result of the revolutionary changes in the collective productiveness of labor? The answer to this question is that the result of changes in the collective productiveness of labor is a new global division of labor, which is qualitatively different from the old one. (Interestingly enough, this answer doesn’t differ much from some of the predictions about the future of capitalism made in the 19th century, for instance, by Karl Marx in his Das Kapital.) Obviously, this is not the only change; but it is one of the most important ones. The gist of this new global division of labor is that a certain, relatively very small, segment of the global population has control (often total) over the production of scientific knowledge and over the production of most advanced technologies. Moreover, this production is physically located in areas controlled and protected by the same segment of the global population. This means further that this segment of the global population is in control of the most crucial instruments of changes in the global collective productiveness of labor; i.e., it has a key advantage over the rest of humankind. This advantage resulted from the tele-information revolution; thanks to this revolution, the knowledge and technologies used for setting in motion processes – economic, political, and recently also biological – which have the most profound impact on the entire global population are now produced on the territories controlled and protected by a very small segment of the global population. Acknowledging this fact permits for a new interpretation of the concept of Information Society. It frees this concept from its hereto existing muddiness and lack of substantial content. To present such a new interpretation of the concept of Information Society is one of the main objectives of this paper.