AUTHOR
Marco Roccetti, Stefano Ferretti Marco Furini, Claudio E. Palazzi
and Paola Salomoni

ABSTRACT

Web 2.0 is widely seen as a powerful tool that makes society better, but the dark side is that all the power might be dissipated in egoistic use and waste of resources, the difference between who has access to information and who has not might increase, and the reciprocal inner closure among users might be favoured. In this article we provide guidelines to redesign the utilization paradigm of Web 2.0 so as to reuse the wasted resources and make them available to altruistic services. This novel and altruistic paradigm would increase the social solidarity and favour the establishment of a “better world”.

AUTHOR
Mary Prior, Simon Rogerson and N. Ben Fairweather

ABSTRACT

Background

A longitudinal study is being conducted into the ethical attitudes of IS professionals, sponsored by the Institute for the Management of Information Systems (IMIS). The latest phase of the study (the ‘2006 survey’) was conducted during 2006-2007 [1]. There were several participant groups, including final year undergraduates studying at a UK university. There were some intriguing differences in the responses of the different participant groups to certain issues. This paper presents the results of a follow-up study with a UK final year undergraduate group similar to the one that took part in the 2006 survey, to probe in more detail their attitudes to three key issues (intellectual property, use of employers’ facilities and electronic surveillance). The issues arising from the study will be discussed and the potential for further work will be explored.

Methodology

The 2006 survey consisted of statements to which respondents indicated the strength of their agreement, or disagreement using a Lickert scale. This gave rise to some interesting findings. For example, a considerable proportion of the UK students appear to endorse the making of illegal copies of software and to consider acceptable the use of their employer’s computer facilities for their own personal profit-making activities.

However there are limitations to such a survey. It is possible that respondents have mis-interpreted the statements. It is also possible some may have answered untruthfully. Even if the integrity of the interpretation and the responses is assumed, the findings may provide an overview of attitudes held but cannot explain why respondents hold them. The statements are necessarily brief and cannot capture the richness of a particular ethical decision-making situation. The respondent cannot be challenged, nor asked to explain the reasoning behind their response to a particular statement [2].

To overcome some of these limitations, a follow-up study was devised with final year undergraduate student groups. Each group is studying a computer ethics-related module; two are based in the UK and, to provide cultural contrast, a third in Malaysia. One of the UK groups comprises students studying more ‘technical’ computing courses (Computer Science and Software Engineering); the other comprises students on more business-oriented courses (e.g. Business Information Systems). The Malaysian students are studying Computer Science.

Three topics were chosen, on the basis of the variety of responses that students made to them in the survey: electronic surveillance in the workplace, use of employers’ facilities and intellectual property. Vignettes were created for each topic to generate discussion about the issue among the student groups. The Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Blackboard is used by the respective computer ethics modules as an integral part of students’ learning, and the Discussion Board facility was the mechanism used to stimulate student debate. By the end of the study, each student group will have had the opportunity to debate two topics. To maintain standards of research ethics, students were informed “…that the materials that are posted on this thread will be used in research but only in an anonymous form” and that if students “do not wish to participate in this thread that is perfectly acceptable”.

As a follow up to the online discussion, focus groups will be convened to pursue the issues raised during the debates. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these research instruments will form part of the submitted paper.

Study Findings

At the time of submission of this abstract, the online discussions are underway. The Blackboard Discussion forum is proving to be a successful mechanism for engaging students, who have been used to using it for the computing ethics modules during recent months. It is enabling them to explain the reasoning behind a particular opinion, to provide examples to support a point of view and to support or challenge each other’s contributions.

The “use of employers’ facilities” is the issue that has so far generated the greatest interest. Some students clearly distinguish between profit- and non-profit-making activities; others appear to condone use of University facilities by a research student (for both types of activity) while saying unauthorized use of a (presumably commercial) employer’s facilities is not ethical. Authorization for either type of use is seen as a key issue. Some sympathy is expressed with the plight of a graduate using her employer’s facilities to earn money to pay off her student debt, while others maintain that whatever the motivation, it is always wrong to make unauthorized use of facilities. The perceived distinction between an “employer” and the “university” is one that will be interesting to pursue in the focus groups.

Example Vignette: Use of employer’s facilities

Abdul is the secretary of a sports club, a job he does in his spare time on a voluntary basis, providing something positive for teenagers to do to help keep them out of trouble. He regularly stays behind after work, using his employer’s facilities to prepare and print off notices, letters and so on for the club. The club treasurer is a University student. She uses the University’s IT facilities to run the membership database, print receipts for payments, etc. Jenny works full-time as a programmer. To help pay off her student debt she also undertakes freelance work in her own time. She regularly stays behind after work to use her employer’s facilities to carry out this profitable freelance work. Jenny has teamed up with a friend from University who has stayed on as a full-time research student. He uses the University’s facilities to complete work that she sub-contracts out to him and for which she pays him.

What do you think of Abdul and Jenny’s behaviour, and the behaviour of their student friends? Would you behave in the same way? Does it make a difference that one pair are using their employer’s and university’s facilities for a voluntary, non-profit-making activity, while the others are engaged in a profit-making business?

The surveillance issue has so far generated two contrasting views; firstly, that CCTV has an overall benefit and that monitoring of resource use is to ensure it is not misused. In countering this one student cites research to support the view that CCTV can “get it wrong” and poses the question: who defines what constitutes “suspicious” behaviour? Whether the CCTV used in University computer laboratories complies with the appropriate guidelines is questioned. A student also questions the monitoring of their use of the VLE; while they accept that tutors do this, they wonder who else has access to this information.

Conclusion

Although the study is not yet complete, early indications are that the variety of views expressed will provide some interesting outcomes to report in the completed paper. This will be of interest to both those involved in educating the future generation of IS professionals, and those who will be employing them.

REFERENCES

[1] Prior, M. Fairweather, N.B. Rogerson, S, Hawash, M. (2008) Is IT Ethical? 2006 ETHICOMP Survey of Professional Practice. IMIS.

[2] Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

AUTHOR
M.J.Phythian, Dr. N.B.Fairweather and Dr. R.G Howley

ABSTRACT

Following an initial investigating in 2007 it appeared that there had been little academic work in the area of measurement and electronic government. There further appeared to have been no analysis of whether the large sums of money spent had been truly worth it or whether the public were getting a better service. To confirm or deny this, a lengthy literature review was commenced in 2008. Much of the available material comes from a political science, ethnographic or political science perspectives, with little from a systems or computing background, particularly involving authors involved in the delivery of such systems. This is confirmed by Bloomfield & Hayes (2005, p.4) in their analysis of e-government.

In the United Kingdom, and in particular in England there was from the outset little in the way of strategy or guidance for the development of e-government. The work of delivering or monitoring change was largely done by trial and error following the initial Public Service Agreement in 2001, as local government was encouraged by financial carrots to report progress back to central government. These reports were entitled Implementing Electronic Government Statements (IEG’s) and were initially required annually and numbered one through three and from these central government developed a model and standardised upon the format of them. A further four reports were called for in subsequent years. Subject to progress being reported in these, grant was received.

The lessons learned from the early IEG’s were further developed into a new set of targets described as Priority Service Outcomes, again sometimes contradictory and inconsistent, but requiring a large investment in technology. These were produced without the establishment of baselines of existing efficiency to measure improvement against. Instead the country is presented with an array of technological solutions that promise little opportunity of being able to join up to deliver any fundamental efficiencies. Further, as Irani et al (2005, p.77) conclude, their research ‘has highlighted that many information system e-government decisions are political and that evaluation is always subjective.’

In a long-awaited government review of public service transformation, Lyons (2007, p.80 on) emphasises what he describes as ‘crowding out of local choice’ by central control, which demonstrates the dichotomy involved in service delivery when prescription from government becomes involved. Whilst Lyons (2007, p.202) is keen to see improved cross-boundary working and identifies the use of technology to do this, at the same time he highlights the tendency for re-inventing the wheel and again, that centrally-imposed restraints limit the ability to implement joined-up services (Lyons (2007) s.4.139).

In reality, the exercise of e-government should have been about improving the customer experience whilst making the most efficient use of all possible channels of communication. Local authorities and government, unlike banks, do not have the option of driving customers down the most cost effective channel for the supplier and instead have to deliver services in a manner appropriate to their local community, which will entail having a range of channels dependent upon need. This can be dependent upon the local community being urban or rural, wealthy or poor and various combinations, which is confirmed in the research of King & Cotterill (2007, p.351).

A key challenge will be to find what metrics have been used to measure the improvements and whether and how they can be adopted in the later stages of implementation. Di Maio (2007) made an excellent effort at selecting and bringing together Public-Value-of-IT frameworks from across the world but what he presents are complex tools and appear too large for local government bodies. What is needed is a framework suitable for the smaller organisation, which was confirmed by the initial investigations done by Carbo & Williams (2004, p.97), unfortunately that work was never extended due to lack of funding.

The ideal unit of measurement might be, in customer terms, satisfaction across all channels. This aligns well with Pumphrey (2006) in terms of a strategy but also with experiences in the banking sector where this was investigated by Patricio et al (2003) and Joseph et al (1999). A danger is highlighted in Delivery and Transformation Group (2006, p.15) of recreating fresh service cliques or silos in the form of the new channels, recreating the original issue and hence there is a need to equate the user view across all of the channels. If there are any parallels with retail customers, research by Tesco, (Young, 2007), has indicated that shoppers want the range of channels operated by the company to be linked together as much as possible. This is reinforced by Straub et al (2002, p.119) who argue that:

“firms that want their traditional and new network-based channels to work together require metrics for interoperability.”

It is also supported by Vesanen and Raulas (2006, p.17) who propose that:

“marketing today is about managing the elements described by the process model, and the entire process itself.”

This examination of the wider literature indicates that:

• improvement for the citizen will primarily be delivered by organisational change with the end-to-end processes involved
• a gap exists in the literature around metrics but there is evidence that customer satisfaction is a potential base measure for identifying movements in public value/social capital, which may help to success or otherwise with the changes
• there is a strong historical basis behind the service structures which have been additionally confused by attempts to make them more efficient, this indicates that change should be carried out carefully

In order to fill the gap in the literature around metrics, the researchers’ instruments include a weblog as a discussion point to examine any suitable metrics that can be fairly measured across a range of service delivery channels, along with an online questionnaire. The blog has been established as: http://greatemancipator.wordpress.com . Piloting of the instruments commenced in March 2008.

This paper will:

• embellish upon findings from the literature and report additional avenues for investigation
• reveal any initial feedback from the research instruments

REFERENCES

Bloomfield, B., Hayes, N., (2005) “Modernisation and the joining-up of local government services in the UK: Boundaries, knowledge & technology.” LUMS Working Papers

Carbo, T., Williams, J.G., (2004). Models and Metrics for Evaluating Local Electronic Government Systems and Services. 4th European Conference on e-Government. Dublin, Electronic Journal of E-Government. 2.

Di Maio, A. (2007) “Worldwide Examples of Public-Value-of-IT Frameworks.” Gartner Industry Research

Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Elliman, T., Jones, S., Themistocleus, M., (2005). “Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities.” Information Systems Journal 15: pp. 61 – 82.

King, S., Cotterill, S., (2007). “Transformational Government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services.” Local Government Studies 33(3): 333 – 354.

Lyons, M. (2007). Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, HMSO.

Patricio, L., Fisk, R.P., e Cunha, J.F., (2003). “Improving satisfaction with bank service offerings: measuring the contribution of each delivery channel.” Managing Service Quality 13(6): pp. 471 – 482.

Pumphrey, S. (2006) “Mastering Channel Strategy.”

Straub, D. W., Hoffman, D.L., Weber, B.W., Steinfield, C., (2002). “Toward New Metrics for Net-Enhanced Organiizations.” Information Systems Research 13(3): pp. 227 – 238.

Vesanen, J., Raulas, M., (2006). “Building Bridges for Personalization: A Process Model for Marketing.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 20(1): pp. 5 – 20.

Young, T. (2007). Tesco wants to link the web and high street. Computing. London. Weekly.

AUTHOR
Piotr Pawlak

ABSTRACT

My adoption of the term ‘mass recipient’ clearly indicates that under this analysis I will perceive the World Wide Web as a mass medium. Nowadays, there seems to be nothing striking about approaching the Internet on equal terms with the television, radio and press. Nevertheless, in my presentation I would like to point out several key features, which make this mass medium global. I mean its scope, the fastness of information delivery and the uninterrupted continuity of ‘operation’.

When discussing the Internet in the context of Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of ‘symbolic violence’, I also wish to draw particular attention to its technical aspects. The application of technical solutions has given the World Wide Web its shape and specificity. Consequently, a unique manner of information storage and accessibility was created. The features delineated in my work seem to assign the characteristics of Bourdieu’s institution of symbolic violence to the new medium. Such a perception of the global computer network challenges the generally accepted theoretical model of Internet communication. Furthermore, it sheds new light on the issue of the real independence of individual users as well as the entire virtual communities. The subject I wish to elaborate on also triggers a discussion over the Web 2.0.

I opted for adoption of Bourdieu’s ideas owing to their universality. The system of terms and premises pioneered by this French sociologist and culture researcher can serve as an excellent tool for various analyses of social and cultural relations, in particular domination-related relations. Bearing in mind the problems, which are the focal point of my work, what is especially interesting is Bourdieu’s description of the process of symbolic culture imbuing into the social awareness. To his mind, it is dependent on the class structure and economic relations system. My underlying thesis is that the new medium is an example of an institutionalized form of symbolic violence.

What seems to be an essential feature of symbolic violence is its institutionalization. This means that it is disseminated through institutions established or adjusted for this end. My first task will be to illustrate that the Web can be comprehended as an institution. The Internet is under an immense influence of a system of regulations adopted by special institutions, which aim at its shaping. Since the advent of the Web, American institutions have been managing its particular aspects. Currently, international entities, which directly originate from the American government bodies, play the role (such as W3C or ICANN). What is more, in majority of cases, American specialists sit in their supervisory bodies. Furthermore, the entire institutional aspects of the Internet have been under the incessant leverage of large corporations and are in the hub of various relations with the American government. There is a powerful lobby behind the US ICT sector and it exerts pressure on the state information security policy. Hence, this, together with the pertinent legislation, translate into the present image of the whole Web (due to the fact the US has the highest number of servers, computers and Web users and Internet service providers in the world). What goes irrevocably hand in hand with the issue is the heavy monopolization of the ICT sector. This issue will also be elaborated herein.

The Internet-based symbolic violence aims at recreation of a defined structure of powers (between classes or groups), and therefore at instituting a particular ‘habitus’, which is particularly appreciated by the dominating groups in power. In order to specify the modern dominating classes or groups (operating worldwide) Bourdieu writes about, I will refer to the concept of cultural imperialism by Herbert Shiller. It presupposes that the US is in the center of the global economic system and the global international corporations represent the most fundamental organizational entities of today’s capitalism. The core of the Shiller system, which is based on the values attributed to the North American culture, through the institution of symbolic violence, that is the mass media (in this particular case this is the Internet), reproduces this arbitrary culture in places within its reach. In the aftermath of the process implementation, the classes subject to the symbolic violence, meaning the Internet users worldwide in this case, are engaged in the shaping of reality perception mechanisms, which goes in league with the interests and values of the arbitrary culture which is in the system’s center.

In order to attempt to present the workings of the Internet (which serves as the tool for the operation of the said symbolic violence) on its users, I refer to the ‘cultivation theory’ by George Gerbner. This is one of the best evidenced and the best developed theories, which interpret the long-term and indirect impact of the media, chiefly the television, on its recipients. As the Internet, as a mass medium is immensely popular, it seems to be the exclusive medium, which can compete with the television in terms of users’ attention absorption and time consumption. What is also worth considering is whether the Internet recipient (user) is in fact so different from the recipient (user) of traditional media. Can we, in reference to the Internet users, really discuss a new communication model, where the communication control power shifts from the sender to the recipient?

To my mind, such a train of conclusions is well-justified if we take into consideration the characteristic technical Internet features. Nevertheless, the possibilities behind this unrestricted, multilateral communication are in practice purely theoretical. The mass Internet users use the popular communication ‘centers’ (information, entertainment, post, auction services, etc.) in a manner similar to watching television programs. Yet, the commercial centers constantly battle over the mass recipients. In the context of the ‘symbolic violence’ the Internet users, in majority of cases, are merely consumers, who can to a small extent and only theoretically mark their presence in the Web and shape its workings. They are the recipients of a medium and of all it has to offer.

AUTHOR
Norberto Patrignani

ABSTRACT

Introduction

This paper addresses the challenging issue of designing a conceptual framework for Computer Ethics. Since its very first definition [1] Computer Ethics has been a fast changing subject with several directions of research: those that consider computing just another area where philosophy has to contribute with the classical tools [2], those that consider it as a necessary new field of study [3], others see it from an historical point of view and backdate its foundation to Norbert Wiener [4] [5]. This paper aims at describing Computer Ethics by means of a conceptual framework based on an ‘applied ethics’ approach. Whilst this “bottom-up” approach has not the ambition of re-defining the nature of Computer Ethics, it can be useful for describing the many areas of impact of computers on society and as a map for case analysis while teaching Computer Ethics.

Vertical “Layers”

The vertical “layers” represent the several areas potentially impacted by computers: from the physical world (Planet, Biosphere, People) to the virtual world (Infosphere, Cyberspace, Ideas). A brief description of these “layers” follows:

• “Planet”, the Earth, our planet (the only one we have)
• “Biosphere”, the whole biological world living on Earth
• “People”, the human beings, ourselves
• “Infosphere”, the collection of hardware, software, computers, routers and networks that now constitutes the precious shell around the planet connecting everyone, everything, everywhere – the Internet
• “Cyberspace”, the virtual space, “on top” of the infosphere, where we are starting to spend a significant part of our life [6]
• “Ideas” (Noosphere), the highest layer of abstraction representing the collection of ideas flowing into humans minds; probably the most precious resource we have, our thought as a whole: inheritance of knowledge and wisdom from the past and innovation potential towards the future [7].

Horizontal “Domains”

The horizontal “domains” illustrated by ellipses with areas in proportion with the importance or potential impact. Their vertical position describes the layers covered by that domain. These domains represent the collection of critical issues created or aggravated by computers. Let’s shortly describe each “domain”:

• “e-Democracy” – what are the new scenarios opened by the dawn of cyberspace? What are the new metaphors we need to develop for the right use of this space? How (and where) to use these tools in the public life, for discussing, taking decisions, voting? [8] [9]
• “Accessibility, Universal Access & Digital Divide” – what are the new barriers (economic, cultural, sensorial) we are building? How to guarantee access to virtual resources using equitable and inclusive criteria? Are we imposing new restrictions to people with disabilities, to elderly? [10]
• “Workplace” – what are the new issues and professional hazards introduced by computers in the workplace? How are the employees, the end-users involved in the design of new systems? [11]
• “Content & Education” – how to select, collect, organize and deliver content on the net? Who will select the content to be inherited by future generations? What impact will computers have on our learning capabilities? [12]
• “CopyRights” – how should the rewarding mechanisms for artists and innovators evolve in the new knowledge society scenario? [13]
• “Hackers” – how should systems be protected against intrusions? How to exploit for the public benefit the “hacker ethics” for improving systems security and reliability? [14]
• “Privacy” – how to protect sensitive data, how to rule the cyberspace for enforcing those protections? Where is the limit between surveillance/safety and an Orwellian society? What are the assumption related to opt-in / opt-out alternatives? [15]
• “Computer Crimes” – what is the definition of computer crime? How to protect critical systems from computer crimes? [16] (it is separated from “hackers” domain, since not all hackers are criminals)
• “Computer (Un)Reliability” – how to improve computer reliability and protect ourselves from life critical systems failures? Who and when should be informed about critical holes in security and reliability of the applications? [17]
• “Artificial Intelligence” – what are the deep questions posed to humankind by robots (at human-scale and at nano-scale) development? Is it correct to delegate to machines life-critical decisions? What issues will arise from the coming cyborgs, man-machine hybrid systems? [18]
• “War” – what are the consequences of “intelligent” weapons development, delegating final “killing” decisions to machines? [19]
• “Ecology & Recycling” – how to avoid/minimize the environmental hazards and impact of hardware production cycles? [20].

These “critical issues” must be addressed at many levels: at individual, professional and societal level; a special role is played by Computer professionals in defining their code of ethics and in informing the public and decision makers about the potentialities and the limits of information technology [21].

In Italy several universities are starting to introduce Computer Ethics courses and we hope this will contribute to the process of growing a new generation of computer professionals, people that will be technology experts aware of the social and ethical implications of information technology.

REFERENCES

[1] Maner W., “Starter Kit on Teaching Computer Ethics”, Helvetia Press, 1980

[2] Johnson D., “Computer Ethics”, Prentice-Hall, 1994

[3] Maner W., “Unique Ethical Problems in Information Technology”, ETHICOMP95

[4] Ward Bynum T., “The Foundation of Computer Ethics”, AICEC99

[5] Wiener N., “The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society”, Houghton Mifflin, 1950

[6] Gibson W., “Neuromancer”, Ace Books, 1984

[7] De Chardin T., “The Phenomenon of Man”, Harper Perennial 1976

[8] Castells M., “The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, 1996

[9] Levy P., “Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace”, Perseus, 1999

[10] WSIS, World Summit on Information Society, “Geneva Declaration of Principles”, 2003

[11] CPSR, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Proc. Participatory Design Conf., MIT, 1992

[12] Koyle K., “Access. not just wires”, CPSR Annual meeting, October 1994

[13] Lessig L., “The future of ideas”, Random House, 2003

[14] Levy S., “Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution”, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984

[15] Lyon D., “Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society”, University of Minnesota Press, 1994

[16] Forester T., Morrison P., “Computer Ethics, Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Comp, MIT, 1993

[17] Neumann P.G., “Computer-Related Risks”, Addison-Wesley, 1994

[18] Joy B., “Why the future doesn’t need us”, Wired 8.04, 2000

[19] Bellin D., Chapman G., “Computers in Battle: Will They Work?”, Harcourt, 1987

[20] EU Directive 2003/108/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

[21] Gotterbarn D., “Informatics and Professional Responsibility”, in “Computer Ethics and Professional Responsibility” (ed. by Ward Bynum T. and Rogerson S.), Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

AUTHOR
Elin Palm

ABSTRACT

As a complement to the many efforts to increase Information Security (IS) by means of furthering sound technology-based systems, this article examines the foundations for processing of personal data and information security from an ethical perspective. Importantly, Information Security concerns both the security of system resources (system security) and the security of data/information (data- or information security). Hence, both data collection aiming at safety enhancement and protection of collected data will be subjected to ethical analysis. This is most important since the two aspects: system- and information security tend to give raise to different types of ethical problems and since the various interests and aims involved may conflict. In particular, national security interests may collide with the triptyche of principles; availability, integrity and confidentiality that aims to protect personal data. Ambitions to secure information infrastructures from external threats and (increased) governmental attempts to control public and private information structures may clash (Brey in:. Petcovic and Jonker (Eds), 2007). Paradoxically, the quest for increased safety requires more of what motivates information security, namely the collection and processing of personal data.

Although the increased gathering and processing of data have triggered debates on privacy infringements and an often uneven distribution of such invasions (cf. Gandy, 1993, Lyon, 2003), several aspects of data collection and security are in need of further clarification.

The contended view of this article is that in order to identify morally defensible ways of obtaining and securing personal data the following aspects (at least) must be recognized and further investigated: (1) the purpose of data collection, (2) the type of data collected and the form of data collection and (3) the data subjects’ possibilities of consenting to disclosure of personal data.

First, before addressing the frequently raised question: how much privacy are we willing to give up for a more secure life?, we should articulate what “enhanced security” means, when and under what conditions we have obtained security. That is, an operationalization of security is necessary. Furthermore, security is often framed as a collective good versus the individual interest privacy and we are typically asked to accept the concrete and foreseeable increment of specific individuals’ privacy for the possibility of increased security. This view however, should be contrasted with arguments to the effect that privacy is crucial not only for personal autonomy but for individuals to express and utilize their democratic rights and liberties (Lever, 2007) and for the reason that individuals have a shared interest in privacy and that privacy is socially valuable (Regan, 1995:213).

Second, what types of information are privacy sensitive and why? A brief survey of prevailing privacy protection legislation reveals how the type that enjoys protection is most often of an obviously sensitive kind e.g. information about sexual orientation, political and/or religious views, leaving aside information that may become privacy sensitive in certain contexts (Palm, 2007). Arguably, whether information is perceived as privacy sensitive or not depends to a large extent on the particular situation (Nissenbaum, 1998, 2003). Hence, it is important to identify features of situations that tend to make personal data privacy sensitive. Particular conditions, contexts and the purpose behind data collection may influence individuals’ perception of data collection. Sex and ethnicity are other factors that are likely influence whether and to what degree individuals consider certain information or ways of processing data privacy sensitive are (Zureik, 2003). This discussion will be informed by empirical sociological research on attitudes to collection and processing of data (The Surveillance Project’s “Global Processing of Data project”: http://www.queensu.ca/sociology/Surveillance/?q=research/gpd)

Third, the conditions under which individuals can be said to, in a substantial way, approve of or consent to having their personal data processed (collected, processed, stored, transferred) deserves further investigation. Certainly, versions of the medical principle informed consent has been imported into the field of Information Technology (IT). Data processing law requires that individuals consent to the collection and processing of their data. However, more is needed in order to identify conditions under which individuals’ consent to disclosure of personal data can be considered morally justifiable. John Elster’s discussion on rational preference adaptation (Elster, 1985) will be used to show the moral import of the context in which individuals state their consent and to establish conditions under which the quality of individuals’ consent can be considered acceptable.

This discussion is intended as a probe for the identification of fair conditions of data collection and information security.

REFERENCES

Brey, P., “Ethical Aspects of Information Security and Privacy” in: Security and Trust in Modern Data Management (eds. M. Petcovic, W. Jonker), Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 2007.

Elster, J., Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Gandy, O. The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1993.

Lever, A., “Feminism, democracy and the right to privacy”. Minerva: an Internet journal of philosophy, 2005.

Lyon, D., Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination, London and New York: Routledge, 2003

Nissenbaum H., “Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The problem of privacy in public”, Law and Philosophy, 17, 1998, 559-596.

Nissenbaum, H., “Privacy as Contextual Integrity”. Washington Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2004.

Palm, E., The Ethics of Workspace Surveillance, Doctoral Thesis in Philosophy, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2007.

Regan, P. M., Legislating Privacy, University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Zureik, E., Theorizing Surveillance: The Case of the Workplace, in:. Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination, Edited by David Lyon, New York: Routeledge, 2003.