LOCATION:
Yunnan University, Kunming, China

DATES:
Monday 2 April 2007 to Tuesday 3 April 2007

HOSTED BY:
Yunnan University

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Computer Society of Yunnan Province
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, UK
Research Center on Computing and Society, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Software Engineering Ethics Research Institute, East Tennessee State University, USA

CONFERENCE DIRECTORS:
Professor Terrell Ward Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Professor Tong Li, Yunnan University ,China
Professor Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University, Japan
Professor Simon Rogerson, De Montfort University, UK

SPONSORS:
The Institute for the Management of Information Systems (IMIS)
Troubador Publishing Ltd
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers ITD
Dept of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hong Kong Computer Society

PAPER ABSTRACT LISTING:

• “Some Key Events In The History of Information and Computer Ethics” by Terrell Ward Bynum
• “Computer Ethics: A Weapon for Information Security?” by Wanbil Lee
• “Inclusive Social Responsibilities of ICT for Special Educational Needs: Problems of the Multifaceted Divide” by Ying Liu and Anita Cornish
• “Learning Activity in the ICT’s Age” by Ji-Xuan Feg
• “Information and Integrity in the Information Age” by Simon Rogerson
• “Digital Dilemmas: Who Should Be Blamed? Computers, Business or Government” by Wei Wang, Li Tong and Yu Tong.
• “Social, Legal and Ethical Impact of ICT” by Rishwaina Dookhony, Porfirio Barroso Asenjo and Lucia Tello Diaz.
• “Tracking Email Offenders” by Man Qi and Maozhen Li
• “Managing Technical and Ethical Risk in Student Projects” by Don Gotterbarn
• “The Content and the Rise of Computer Ethics” by Yang Jun, Song Kejian and Li Junli
• “Genetic Technologies and Egalitarianism” by Jeremy Moss
• “Ethics and Technology” by Porfirio Barroso Asenjo, Rishwina Dookhony and Lucia Tello Diaz
• “Towards the Establishment of Socially Responsible Information Quality Management” by Kiyoshi Murata
• “Addressing Risk in Project Based Classes: A Hands-On Approach to Ethics and Professionalism” by Don Gotterbarn and Simon Rogerson
• “Ethic Issue of Gender Difference on Pointing Performance” by Ken Tin-Kai Chena, Robert C.C Chena and Hong-Ji Yang
• “On the Growth of Collaborative and Competitive Networks: Opportunities and New Challenges” by Ugo Pagallo and Giancarlo Ruffo
• “The Learning Organization: Synonymous With Ethical Knowledge Management? by Goncalo Costa, Mary Prior and Simon Rogerson
• “The Ethics of Cyberspace” by Fie Dai and Tong Li
• “Regulation In the Context of ICT” by Lucia Tello Diaz, Rishwina Dookhony and Porfirio Barroso Asenjo
• “The Self-Ethics in Cyberspace” by Duan Weiwen
• “Panel on Teaching Computer Ethics” by Panel Chair Tong Li
  

LOCATION:
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan

DATES:
Tuesday 27 March 2007 to Thursday 29 March 2007

HOSTED BY:
Global e-SCM Research Center, Meiji University, Japan

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, UK
Research Center on Computing and Society, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Software Engineering Ethics Research Institute, East Tennessee State University, USA

CONFERENCE DIRECTORS:
Professor Terrell Ward Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Professor Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University, Japan
Professor Simon Rogerson, De Montfort University, UK

SPONSORS:
International Communications Foundation
The Institute for the Management of Information Systems (IMIS)
Troubador Publishing Ltd
Japan Society for Management Information
Japan Society for the Study of Office Automation

Continue reading “ETHICOMP2007 – Tokyo, Japan”

LOCATION:
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

DATES:
September 12-15 2005

HOSTED BY:
Centre for Applied Ethics
Linköping University, Sweden

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility De Montfort University, UK
Research Center on Computing and Society Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Software Engineering Ethics Research Institute East Tennessee State University, USA

CONFERENCE DIRECTORS
Professor Terrell Ward Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University, USA
Professor Göran Collste, Linköping University, Sweden
Professor Sven Ove Hansson, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Professor Simon Rogerson, De Montfort University, UK

SPONSORS:
International Society for Ethics and Information Technology (INSEIT)
The Institute for the Management of Information Systems (IMIS)
Troubador Publishing Ltd
Swedish Research Council

Continue reading “ETHICOMP2005 – Linkaping, Sweden”

AUTHOR

Melih Kirlidog

ABSTRACT

Ottomans conquered Cyprus from Venetians in 1571 and after an agreement between Ottoman and British empires in 1878 it became a British proctectorate. The British annexed the island in 1914 after the outbreak of WWI. The two main ethnic groups, Greeks and Turks which had about three quarters and one quarter of the population respectively, lived in relative peace in the island for centuries. Even the 1919-1922 Turco-Greek war in the Anatolian peninsula did not have much effect in Cyprus.

The 1950s witnessed an accelerating independence movement in the island. Greek Cypriots demanded union with Greece (Enosis), an act that was strongly rejected by the Turkish Cypriots who were concerned by the possibility of becoming an oppressed minority. The two communities started to get involved in a bitter conflict in the second half of the 1950s. Turkish, Greek and British governments and the representatives of the two communities signed the Zurich and London agreements in 1959 which paved the way to the foundation of Republic of Cyprus in 1960. The president of the new republic would be of Greek, and the vice-president would be of Turkish origin. Seventy percent of the parliament would be allocated to the Greeks, thirty percent to the Turks.

After a relatively calm period, the ethnic strife started again in 1963 which resulted in the hard times for the Turkish community which had to seek refuge in small enclaves. In 1974 the ailing Greek junta organized a coup against President Makarios, who had to flee from the island. The main aim of the coup was Enosis and left-wing Greek Cypriots parties along with the Turkish community were the targets of the coup. Based on the 1959 agreements recognizing Greece, Turkey, and the UK as the three guarantor states, Turkey initially sought to cooperate with the UK to counter the coup. However, satisfied with its two bases, the UK was reluctant to get involved in such an intervention. The Turkish army intervened (this is the Turkish vocabulary; in Greek the act is invasion) the island on 20 July 1974, five days after the coup. Three days later the Greek junta in Athens fell from power. The Cyprus war lasted for about one month with atrocities to the civilian population from both sides and hundreds of thousands of refugees. Cyprus is currently a divided island where Turkish Cypriots live at north and Greek Cypriots live at south. The buffer zone is controlled by UN troops and according to the Greek Cypriots the Northern part of the island is invaded by the Turkish army which has installed an unlawful state (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) there; while the Turkish Cypriots, remembering the bitter events of the 1963-1974, are enjoying peace and security since then. Yet, it must also be noted that the economic hardship at north is leading to increasing dissatisfaction among the Turkish Cypriots. Although not without exceptions, physical contact was extremely difficult among the two communities until 23 April 2003 when the border was opened for daily visits.

The 29 years of separation between 1974 and 2003 meant that about half of the Cyprus population has never seen a person from the “other side” in their lives. Except for a few common villages, there was ultimate separation during the 1970s and 1980s. However, the 1990s witnessed an accelerating rate of contacts between the two communities. Possibly to some extent related with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, political parties, peace activists, professional groups, youth and women organizations sought and realized contacts from the other side.

Although still limited, the increasing pace of contacts found an excellent medium in the 1990s. The Internet and its WWW, mainly used by the younger generation who usually had no previous contact, provided an abstract way of communication that has the potential to be converted to tangible. Several bi-communal mailing lists and web pages were established on both sides to foster communication among the communities. Since the younger generation lacked the knowledge of the other side’s language, mailing lists are exclusively in English (thereby excluding a large number of the population) and web sites are either only in English or trilangual.

The bi-communal electronic mail lists are, by definition, oriented towards establishing a friendship environment and usually the members have a sincere attempt to understand what “the other” has to say. Some of them are rather active and functional in establishing tangible contacts such as “Peace Camps”. The favorite and “secure” topic in such lists is to criticize her own government as an obstacle for peace while criticizing only the other government in a message usually attracts carefully and politely worded controversy. The tone of the controversy increases if coming from the own side. Thus, to be on the safe side, most members prefer to criticize both of the governments even when only one deserves criticism for a particular subject.

Unlike the almost homogeneous electronic mail lists, the WWW reflects the entire range of positions in both communities. The spectrum here is from the bi-communal friendship web sites to the racist and xenophobic ones which usually accuse the former compatriot ones with treason. Another source of treason accusation is the funding of some bi-communal web sites by international organizations such as United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and European Union or the US Embassy in Nicosia.

Although difficult to generalize, a slight pattern seems to emerge in the spectrum of antagonism to amity with “the other” in both communities. This spectrum roughly matches with political spectrum from the left to the right. In other words, individuals and organizations on the left of the political spectrum are usually more inclined to establish tangible and intangible contacts with the other side.

AUTHOR

Heidi King and Simon Rogerson

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Expert systems may significantly help medical personnel to fulfil their obligation of providing the best possible care for their patients. However, in spite of this there is a high level of resistance from some medical personnel towards using these computer systems. This paper will examine the ethical issues uncovered in a case study conducted amongst a group of clinicians routinely using expert systems in their day-to-day work.

Background

A group of clinicians working in a progressive teaching hospital in Vienna, Austria have access to four “expert systems” that have been routinely used in that facility for over five years. These systems range in function, from making “judgements” regarding when the patient is ready to be weaned from artificial ventilation, to examining blood test results in order to diagnose the presence of Hepatitis A and B, to aiding Primary Care Physicians in making diagnoses of unusual Rheumatological cases, to monitoring the spread of hospital-caught infections within that hospital.

It was recognised by the developers of these expert systems that if the systems were to cause any reduction in the quality of the provision of healthcare, these systems would be immediately (and rightly so) rejected by clinicians. These systems have therefore been tested extensively and have been proven to work at least as effectively, and often more effectively, than can the medical personnel. Medical personnel have a duty to treat and care for their patients to the best of their abilities (the Principle of Beneficence) and to cause no harm to those patients (the Principle of Non-Malfeasance). These duties can be fulfilled more effectively by utilising expert systems; resistance against using these systems may be indicative of a failure on the part of medical personnel to meet these duties.

Resistance by clinicians

Interviews conducted with 6 clinicians (see King et al, 2002 for a more in-depth description of this case study) revealed that although all the expert systems worked as well as, if not better than, the healthcare workers, some clinicians were reluctant to use these systems. Broadly speaking, older clinicians were perceived as less likely to be receptive towards the introduction of expert systems into the workplace than their younger colleagues. This may be due to a lack of familiarity of, and suspicion towards, computer systems in general. Significantly, it was found that all clinicians that were interviewed, regardless of age, even when that particular clinician had been instrumental in the creation of one or more expert systems, did not fully trust the advice or results given by those systems and treated the systems more as an academic exercise rather than a useful tool to enhance patient treatment.

Ethical Values

The actions, or inaction, of the clinicians interviewed were analysed by comparing their behaviour against a list of fundamental ethical principles provided by a professionally recognised Health Informatics body. These principles included the Principle of Non-Malfeasance, the Principle of Beneficence and the Principle of Autonomy, all of which will be examined below. The principles of Equality and Justice, Impossibility, and Integrity will also be examined fully in the final paper.

Non-Malfeasance: All persons have a duty to prevent harm to other persons insofar as it lies within their power to do so without undue harm to themselves All clinicians interviewed stressed their commitment towards caring for their patients. Their behaviour noted above may in some part be explained by a misguided belief that the reluctance to use these systems is actually upholding the principle of Non-Malfeasance. However, genuine concerns were also raised. These included concerns such as the use and/or maintenance of the systems being time-consuming, which may allow less time for direct patient interaction and so may be malfeasant towards the patients. Much time has also been spent by the group ensuring that the medical knowledge is both correct, and up-to-date, to ensure that the systems do no harm.

Beneficence: All persons have a duty to advance the good of others where the nature of this good is in keeping with the fundamental values of the affected party If, has been claimed, the use of these systems provides the best possible care for patients, it is clear that the clinicians have a duty to use them in order to uphold this principle. As described above in the ‘Resistance by clinicians’ section, levels of usage of these systems varies greatly. Some (principally the older) clinicians are not using these systems at all. Other clinicians are not using them to their fullest extent. Both kinds of inaction indicate that the clinicians are not fulfilling the principle of Beneficence towards their patients.

Autonomy: All persons have a fundamental right to self-determination Clinicians in Vienna are asserting their right to be autonomous in the methods in which they work. This right is supported by their hospital and work culture. This assertion may at times clash with other principles, particularly the Principle of Beneficence where it applies to the advancement of the good of the clinicians’ patients. This may be due to a lack of awareness of the potential of the expert systems.

Patient autonomy may be actually bringing forward the introduction of expert systems as patients become more knowledgeable and more willing to challenge clinicians’ diagnosis, perhaps due to the Internet; and market forces driven by insurance companies require more elaborate and rigorous tests which may only be satisfied by the use of expert systems.

Conclusion

Many factors need to be taken into consideration when assessing how clinicians ought to use Expert Systems. Clinicians’ primary concerns are protecting their patients’ welfare but this may be leading to an unwarranted reluctance to use the best tools possible for the job.

REFERENCES

King, H., Garibaldi, J. & Rogerson, S. (2002) Intelligent Medical Systems: Partner or Tool? Proc. ETHICOMP conference Lisbon, Portugal 2002.

AUTHOR

Chula G. King

ABSTRACT

Concern over the relationship between technological innovations and the erosion of privacy rights is not a new phenomenon. For example, in 1890, Warren and Brandis wrote “that the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. . . . Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life.” At the end of the nineteenth century, legislators, regulators and the courts grappled with the enactment and enforcement of laws designed to balance the individual’s right to privacy against the information explosion made possible by advances in technology. A hundred years later, legislators, regulators and the courts find themselves in a similar position with the emergence of the information age.

One of the key ethical issues of the information age is information privacy. The revolutions in business computing brought about by technological advances in telecommunications and distributed computing have fundamentally changed the way that companies operate [Rudraswamy and Vance, 2001]. Increasingly, the creation and use of digital data are deemed strategically important to a company’s short-term and long-term success. Just as the technological advances have fundamentally changed business practices, so too have they changed societal attitudes towards privacy. In fact, much attention has recently been focused on societal attitudes toward privacy and the impact of those attitudes on the continued growth of e-Commerce and e-Business [Adkinson, Eisenach and Lenard, 2002]. The reason for this is that the long-term success of e-Commerce and e-Business depends in large part on the trust that must be earned in a faceless and stateless environment.

On a global basis, privacy concerns have been most acute in the United States. The European Union has followed closely behind the United States in its citizen’s concerns over privacy issues. This is especially true when one recognizes the growing company use of the electronic means to capture personal information of users of the Internet. The United States tends to minimize the government’s influence on company data gathering and privacy policies, and instead relies on the private sector to police itself. The European Union, on the other hand, focuses its attention on the government’s regulation of privacy policies affecting its citizens [Directive 95/46/EC, 1995].

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current privacy characteristics of the 500 largest companies in the world as defined by the Fortune Global 500 [Fortune, 2000]. This study expands on previous studies conducted in 2002 [King, 2002] and 2000 [King, 2001]. The privacy characteristics examined include the company use of cookies and web bugs, the company ability to collect personally identifying information, and the privacy disclosure practices followed. These characteristics are compared to those existing 12-months ago and 30-months ago to show the pattern of the changes that have occurred over this time frame. The companies are first looked at in total to determine overall practices related to privacy and disclosure. Then they are grouped by country and geographical region in an effort to determine whether companies in specific countries and regions are more prone to use privacy invasion techniques on their web sites, to collect data about visitors to their web sites, and/or to publish detailed privacy policies on their web sites. Finally, the companies are group by industry in an effort to determine the same characteristics.

The results of this study indicate that companies in the NAFTA region lead their European Union and Asian counterparts in the depositing of cookies and web bugs, and in the collection of personal information. Companies in Asia are least likely to utilize any privacy invasion techniques and are also least likely to post privacy policies on their web sites. Electronic, Pharmaceutical and Telecommunication companies are the leaders in allowing the placement of web bugs. Pharmaceutical companies are the most likely to have privacy policies posted on their web sites.

REFERENCES

Adkinson, W. F. Jr., Eisenach, J.A., and Lenard T.M. (March, 2002). Privacy online: A report on the information practices and policies of commercial websites, online at http://pff.org/publications/privacyonlinefinalael.pdf accessed 01.09.2003.

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. (October 24, 1995), Community Legislation in Force, Document 395L0046. online at http://www.ispai.ie/legal/eu/1995-general-dp.htm accessed 02.09.2003.

Fortune Lists. (2000), The Global 500 List, online at http://www.fortune.com/fortune/global500/ accessed 09.10.2000.

King, C.G. (March, 2001), E-Commerce: The privacy invasion, Proceedings of the International Association of the Management of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, on CD.

_________ (June, 2002). International internet privacy practices of global fortune 500 companies, Proceedings of the 2002 European Applied Business Research Conference, Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany, on CD – article 171.

Rudraswamy, V., and Vance, D. A. (2001), Transborder data flows: adoption and diffusion of protective legislation in the global electronic commerce environment, Logistics Information Management, 14, 127-137.

Warren, S. D. and Brandis, L. D. (1890), The right to privacy, Harvard Law Review, 4, 193-220.