AUTHOR

Lynsey Dubbeld (Netherlands)

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION
Privacy protections – in particular since the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the concomitant data protection legislation – have been aimed at regulating the relations between individuals and organisations: new legislative safeguards for the individual’s control over information possessed by large organisations have been considered necessary in view of the increasing power of organisations and businesses over citizens. The growing influence of organisations on individuals’ lives is not only evident in the massive processing of personal data in the commercial sector, but also – as this paper will argue – in private companies’ use of Closed-Circuit TeleVision (CCTV) to observe large portions of the population. In exploring this issue, the author will introduce examples taken from her field study on a centralised system of CCTV in train stations in the Netherlands.

THE SHAPING OF SURVEILLANCE: MATERIAL AND DISCURISVE INTERVENTIONS
With the widespread perception of ICTs enabling the extension of organisations’ control and influence over individuals, the potential invasions of citizens’ and consumers’ privacy appear to have increased considerably (cf. Johnson, 2001). In the case of camera surveillance in the public and semi-public domains, business enterprises – in particular as a result of public financing opportunities and through the formation of public-private partnerships – possess ample capacities to construct asymmetries of power.

Material definitions of surveillance
Firstly, either by producing and installing camera equipment, or through implementing, owning, and financing CCTV schemes, business enterprises increasingly define the preconditions for camera-enabled surveillance in public areas.

Discursive shaping of surveillance

Secondly, the execution of targeted surveillance is discursively shaped through the organisational contexts in which categories of ‘suspicious’ (or in any other way undesirable or ‘other’) persons are identified and defined. These categories – which are strongly reminiscent of the typologies dominating discourses of crime prevention and which are also discernible in, for instance, contemporary criminal justice systems – are developed by private sector management closely collaborating with other ‘primary definers’ (such as police, local government, and security companies) and are subsequently translated into instructions for monitoring personnel observing and interpreting the camera images (cf. Coleman & Sim, 2000; Norris & Armstrong, 1999).

SHOOTING BACK: THE BOUNDARIES OF ORGANISATIONAL POWER
Although the organisational setting is thus of crucial importance for the actual application of camera systems and observation methods, and the private sector appears to decisively influence, or even determine, the surveillance capacities of CCTV (with the subsequent effects on the privacy protections of those using the public domain), the surveilled population does not stand entirely powerless towards the corporately organised surveillance (cf. Haggerty & Ericson, 2000).

Monitoring CCTV

Firstly, increasingly, laws regulating the application of camera surveillance and legislative safeguards for the protection of individuals’ privacy exist, ranging from data protection legislation to laws prohibiting the use of covert surveillance. Individuals as well as civil rights organisations can challenge and fight the legitimacy and presence of camera systems on the basis of these laws – and in fact, sometimes successfully do so (as is shown by actions taken by organisations like ACLU, BCCLA, and Privacy International).

Watching out

Secondly, in spite of the rules of behaviour laid down by the management in official regulations, the operators actually monitoring the cameras – and acting upon the incidents thus observed – in practice possess considerable latitude in observing particular persons and groups. And although the categories of ‘suspects’ defined by the company frequently recur in the rules of operation used by camera personnel – with black people, drug users, and the homeless being particularly targeted (cf. Norris & Armstrong, 1999) – there appear to be many exceptions to these general principles as well (women, people wearing uniforms, exhibitionists), whereas the targeted populations are often being observed only briefly, with no subsequent deployment being called in. As a result of this (and the technical limitations of camera technology and the peripherals of CCTV systems), the observed are not subjected to a continuous, intense panoptic gaze structured by corporate goals, but rather become one of the many points of passage in a refractory network of supervision.

Looking back

Thirdly, individuals can take affirmative actions to fight against the privacy intrusive and classificatory tendencies inherent in visual surveillance, not only by appealing to the law, but also by mobilising the media in order to critically examine surveillance systems and intervene in the hegemonic discourse in which classifications are being defined and CCTV is being (either literally or symbolically) sold. What’s more, ‘the flattening effects of the official capital-intensive video gaze in urban spaces’, as David Lyon has put it (Lyon, 2001: 62) can be challenged: through reversing the gaze, and scrutinizing the observers by privately-owned domestic camera systems (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000); by making fun of the camera’s presence by using it as a instrument of personal amusement (Norris & Armstrong, 1999), as exhibitionists or groups like the Surveillance Camera Players do; or simply through destruction or sabotage of CCTV systems.

CONCLUSION

As Pris Regan has shown in her study of US privacy policies and legislation (Regan, 1995), primary definers from the private industry involved in the production of new technologies can considerably influence the development of safeguards for citizen’s privacy. This paper focuses on the role of commercial enterprises in the practical operation of such technologies, showing that through the material and discursive framing of CCTV, business organisations mediate the interactions between observers and the observed, with asymmetries of power and hierarchies of agency being continually negotiated, disputed and challenged – an analysis which could prove to be useful not only for advocacy groups aiming objecting to surveillance activities, but also for new understandings of concepts like surveillance, power and privacy (cf. Lyon, 2001).

REFERENCES

Coleman, Roy and Sim, Joe (2000) ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone: CCTV Surveillance, Order and Neo-Liberal Rule in Liverpool City Centre’ in: British Journal of Sociology 51 (4), 623-639.

Davies, Simon G. (1998) ‘CCTV: A New Battleground for Privacy’ in: Norris, Clive et al. (eds.) Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control Ashgate. Aldershot, 243-254.

Haggerty, Kevin D. and Ericson, Richard V. (2000) ‘The Surveillant Assemblage’ in: British Journal of Sociology 51 (4), 605-622.

Johnson, Deborah G. (2001) Computer Ethics Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River (N. J.) (1985).

Lyon, David (1994) The Electronic Eye. The Rise of Surveillance Society Polity Press. Cambridge.

Lyon, David (2001) Surveillance Society. Monitoring Everyday Life Open University Press. Buckingham (PA.).

Marx, Gary (1996) ‘Electric Eye in the Sky: Some Reflections on the New Surveillance and Popular Culture’ in: David Lyon and Elia Zureik (eds), Computers, Surveillance and Privacy University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis/London, 193-233.

Norris, Clive and Armstrong, Gary (1998) ‘Introduction: Power and Vision’ in: Norris, Clive et al. (eds.) Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control Ashgate. Aldershot, 3-18.

Norris, Clive and Armstrong, Gary (1999) The Maximum Surveillance Society. The Rise of CCTV Berg. Oxford/New York.

Regan, Priscilla M. (1995) Legislating Privacy. Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill/London.

AUTHOR

Michael McChrystal and Alison Barnes (US)

ABSTRACT

The principle of consent has driven much of the debate about how to reconcile the significant efficiencies permitted by electronic transmittal of personal data and the important dignitary interests that are threatened by electronic data transfers. The subject’s consent to data disclosure presumptively resolves any concerns about protecting the dignity and autonomy of the individual. The most influential public policy statements governing the transmittal and use of personal data all emphasize consent as a key element in protecting human rights. (Examples: OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, European Union Directive on Personal Data, United States Privacy Act of 1974.)

We contend that the reliance on consent as the primary safeguard of dignity and autonomy often is overstated. Entities that seek (or perhaps insist on) transfers of personal data usually represent that consent is like a toggle switch – it is either on or off, given or withheld. From a legal and ethical perspective, this seriously oversimplifies the issues involved. For consent to enhance the dignity interests of the individual and contribute to personal autonomy, it must be informed and voluntary. Both of these requirements may impose significant transaction costs. In addition, consent also should be subject to limitations. For example, an individual should be able to condition consent by authorizing the release of only a portion of the data, by restricting the transfer of data to one purpose only, or by imposing the condition that the source or subject of the data is kept confidential. Information practices rarely implement this more complex understanding of consent to disclose personal data.

Thus, while the principle of consent is legally and rhetorically highlighted, the simplified version of consent that predominates information practices often fails to deliver the dignitary objectives it purports to achieve. We begin, then, with a look at what an idealized regime of consent looks like. This will include a discussion of particular web sites and the mechanisms of consent they use. One purpose of this paper is to outline the features of a strong process for granting or withholding consent.

A second objective of the paper follows from the recognition that some online transactions cannot (or will not) include procedures for the strong form of consent to data disclosure. This may be due to transaction costs, public policy decisions, or market phenomena. Even in these cases, however, important dignitary benefits can be achieved if care is taken in designing the process through which the consent occurs. Thus, a second purpose of this paper is to discuss these imperfect-consent cases.

Even when it is flawed, the process of obtaining consent can serve important functions if it orders interpersonal relationships and affirms societal values that promote responsible and conscientious action on the part of the persons involved. Such a process is properly termed a ritual, i.e., a prescribed sequence of actions and words intended to invoke powerful emotional and social forces. Rituals consist of acts, and often also words, that convey meaning in addition to any specific information exchanged. The procedure for obtaining consent may be valuable if its ritual content contributes to the integrity of the relationships involved, and this is true even if the consent is uninformed or otherwise flawed.

The law utilizes rituals extensively, reflecting the common understandings of society about the importance of certain transactions. Contemporary illustrations include the oath preceding sworn testimony, the use of notaries and seals, and the formalities required to execute a will.

The procedure for obtaining consent to disclose personal data, we contend, can include a number of important features that enhance its ritual nature. The potential benefits of ritualistic consent procedures are significant. The need to obtain consent speaks to the importance of the data and the importance of the transaction. If formal consent is required for disclosure, then the data itself must be both important and confidential. Thus, the ritual of consent affirms the autonomy and dignity of the individual. The ritual centers on a decision and act by the data subject. Moreover, holding the data confidentially must be an important responsibility, and so the stature and trustworthiness of the service provider is recognized.

In summary, this paper will discuss the legal nature of consent as a complex concept that enhances individual dignity and autonomy. We also propose to discuss the extent to which information practices comport with this more complex understanding of consent. Finally, we propose to develop the theme that even when information practices fall short of the ideal, they may serve important dignitary objectives if they are structured as rituals that reaffirm the human rights of data subjects.

AUTHOR

Yasunari HARADA, Takeo TATSUMI, Noriaki KUSUMOTO and Joji MAENO (Japan)

ABSTRACT

1. Background

Introduction of computers and networks into work places and schools are changing the way learning is delivered, conducted and evaluated. Interactive training systems can customize not only the delivery but also the content to be learned based on the current needs of the learner.However, there does not seem enough attention on the legal and ethical ramifications of privacy concerns regarding learner profiles and learning histories that accumulate on those systems. In order for the systems to function with adequate personalization, accumulation
of activity records is indispensable. If learners are to migrate from one system to another, exchange of such records among those systems have to be ensured.However, if such records are exchanged without any limit, learners’ privacy is severely compromised.

2. Conflicting interests and stakes: some examples

2.1. Learners’ perspective

A subscribed learner of a particular web-based training system arrives at a certain level but find the system somewhat less attractive than another with the same or similar subject matter, she/he may want to switch to the
new one, but certainly would not want to start the new courses from scratch. Users of those systems need certain information to be transferred from one system to another if they want the freedom of choice among those systems. Also, good achievers in a system, working diligently and constantly getting good scores, would like to be able to present some certified records of learning when they apply for a job or a higher school, because such information may place them in a favorable position in the selective process and/or lead to have certain mandatory training/courses waived after employment/admission. On the other hand, poor performers would have little reason for wanting to have their scores or records disclosed to someone else.

2.2. Teachers

When there are more than two systems that provide testing and/or training for a given set of students, teachers in charge of that group are faced with several kinds of additional tasks. First, they have to register their students or have the students register themselves to the multiplicity of systems under consideration. Then, they have to instruct the students on potential security concerns of those systems and how to safeguard their privacy as best they could. Third, they have to keep track of activities their students would conduct with these systems. Fourth, they have to consider how or to what extent they could safeguard themselves against outside scrutiny.

2.2. School administrators

Not only would school administrators want to know which student is performing excellent, OK, or poorly, but they would naturally want to know which teacher or which program is effective in helping students perform better.
So, they would want to know everything about each student and about each teacher/program. However, would they like to have their school performance known to the world in general?

School district, local government and national
government builds up on this hierarchy. What details should be reported to what level of this administrative hierarchy is an educational, political, financial,
social and cultural issue to which there should be different answers depending on the society in which this takes place. We should not impose a universal solution, and a system implementation that presupposes one particular solution cannot achieve a universal adoption.

2.4. Contents/Service providers

Once system designers and their management are convinced that massive data accumulation of learner responses such as response time, all the wrong and right choices to a particular multiple-choice type of questions, actual input key sequences or input voice responses to an open question, and so on so forth for all the items in a given test or a given assignable unit for all the
registered users is not only indispensable for a
continued improvement and survival of their systems, they would begin to store and accumulate everything about the learner and their learning, including the history of activities that their subscribed learners are engaged in during training or examination, and whatever the system designers and their management might fancy would be relevant and helpful in some unforeseeable future time. This is a potential cause of privacy concern for the learners, because service providers may advertise privacy protection policies, but once those private entities go bankrupt, what happens to the most valuable assets of those companies is predictable from our experiences in recent years.

3. Toward a possible solution of the problem

In the arena of online learning, we are beginning to understand that we have a serious problem, similar to those that we find in e-commerce and online transactions of medical information. We need interchange of information, but we have to make sure privacy of each individual concerned is respected and protected. This, in principle, is a contradiction and there may be no universal solution, because different societal needs may give different weight on conflicting demands of different stakeholders in this landscape.

AUTHOR

Martha M. Smith (US)

ABSTRACT

Higher education is one of the most conservative of our social institutions. Yet in the last several decades, colleges and universities have faced enormous pressures from within and without. Shrinking budgets, demands to keep up with information and communications technologies (ICT’s), changing student demographics with an increase in non-traditional and distance students-these realities have upset the familiar balance of power on many campuses. With many commercial providers now entering the marketplace, the competitive scene is changing. Some traditional schools are even trying to capitalize on a hoped for a financial windfall from online distance education. This paper uses the contrast between traditional classroom-based linear learning and Internet-based hypertext learning as a focus and metaphor to examine the ethical dimensions of the transforming challenges of ICT’s in higher education. The empirical basis for the study is the growth of distance learning programs in Library and Information Science and the needs of adult pre-professional students in LIS master’s programs, the roles of the faculty, and prospects for the scholarly research apparatus that underpins the continuing emergence of new disciplinary configurations.

The following description of linear and hypertext learning styles has been developed in observations and interviews with LIS students. It demands much further study, but in the tradition of grounded theory, gives a start for testing observations and moving toward generalizations.

Linear Learning Style

Familiar
Systematic
Print-based
Teacher/Professor-based
Conservative

Hypertext Learning Style

Unfamiliar
Serendipitous
Web-based
Student/Peer-based
Innovative

The Internet and distance learning software make it possible for higher education to be global in ways that were not possible before. New ways of teaching, conducting research, publishing, and communicating within scholarly circles raise many issues concerning academic freedom; intellectual property rights and sharing; tenure and promotion; student plagiarism and other misuses of data and systems; and accreditation and other measures of quality. These ethical issues challenge all who are associated in higher education. Using a five-point model (Access, Ownership, Privacy, Security, and Community) from my previous work on information ethics, this presentation seeks to describe some of the key dilemmas now faced in learning, teaching, and research and to suggest in what ways ethical analysis and reflection might contribute to institutional discourse. A distinction is made here between ethical analysis and the moral context in which ethical thinking takes place. For purposes of this discussion, I assume that institutions function within a moral environment which can be described and analyzed using the traditions and methods of philosophical and ethical thinking. The topics in the model divide the issues into five categories noted below. These categories are useful to structure reflection and also to demonstrate the conflicts among them. For example, access to certain information may compromise ownership or privacy. Community building through information sharing may diminish the capacity for owners to secure their intellectual property rights.

On ACCESS: How can hypertext learning enhance access to education for more people, particularly for working adults? Should institutions provide access to appropriate ICT equipment, courseware systems, skill building, and learning resources? What must be done to protect access to unfiltered web resources? Can online hypertext learning be interactive enough to compensate for the loss of the face-to-face experience?

On OWNERSHIP: What is the proper role for copyright in the university and in scholarly publishing? Who owns online courses, syllabi, and other faculty-created resources? Can higher education be delivered by the “Professor in a Box”? Can faculty members sell their intellectual property to the highest bidder? What do the Open Source movement and the Open Source philosophy mean to faculty, students, and administrators? What role should faculty unions have in protecting faculty intellectual property rights?

On PRIVACY: What privacy safeguards can be in place to preserve academic freedom for faculty and privacy protection for students to encourage open discussion? What data gathering and statistical methods are appropriate to improve quality while protecting privacy? Should certain kinds of information (medical, legal, financial) receive special care?

On SECURITY: Is there adequate security for personal data? What encryption tools are needed in education systems? Are there sufficient redundancies to keep systems secure and reliable? What about the challenges of national security and governmental efforts to use various systems to increasing surveillance?

On COMMUNITY: What is needed to build a global intellectual community in cyberspace? How can the dominance of English be balanced by multi-language sites and resources? How should issues such as Information Democracy and the Digital Divide be addressed in higher education?

Other general questions emerge from the specific issues.

• How is the digital, hypertext environment transforming the moral landscape of higher education? Can a better understanding of moral agency counteract the tendency toward an attitude of technological determinism?
• What are the conflicting values held by stakeholders (students, faculty, administrators, boards and governing agencies, society)?
• What strategies might be employed to resolve differences and balance interests?
• How can institutions of higher education maintain the strengths of the traditional linear styles while embracing the advantages of new hypertext styles?
• Is there a way to define a socially responsible role for higher education within the larger society?
• What curricular, programmatic, and administrative changes might be made?

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the right to free access to information by any means and across all borders. Article 26 deals with education. Section 2 calls for a high standard: “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.” Looking at these in relation to higher education, will it be possible to move toward new normative understanding? Is there a linear morality that is being replaced by a hypertext morality? How can we contribute to making such a transformation inclusive and responsible?

AUTHOR

Mario Arias Oliva, Mar Souto Romero and Gustavo Matias Clavero

ABSTRACT

Organization designs have been determined during the last decades by classical scientific principles made by Taylor (1911). But nowadays, the new global and digital environment shows quite different conditions. The classical industrial stable mass production is not suitable any more (Wigand et al, 1997). Because of this we find that the ways of organizing activities based on conventional design paradigms are not adequate enough in order to fit with new environmental conditions. New organization design are appearing, such as the virtual forms. But what does it means exactly to organize in a virtual way?. An organization that sells through internet, Could be considered a virtual one?. Virtual organization is a buzzword, but there are no much scientific research about how to define a virtual organization, what are the key characteristics . A paradigm shift is taking place (Tapcott, Caston1993), and when a scientific revolution is occurring, crisis is a necessary precondition (Kuhn, 1962). During a crisis situation, scientific community try to find new evidences that sustain current paradigm. Incremental improvement occurs, but finally the core of the theory suffer a dissolution. Before the dissolution of the theory, practitioners with direct contact with reality are the first movers, leaving the current paradigms looking for a new framework that fits properly with real conditions (Applegate, 1994). At the present time, we are in this situation. It is difficult to assert that a new paradigm has arrived, as well as traditional ones are not longer enough. This paper aim to define a theoretical model about what a virtual organization design is. In the defined framework, we include some ethical issues that should be taking into consideration when a business design process is made. The ethical dimension of organizing can be reach in many different ways, such as trust. A virtual organization can be composed by a group of companies (Sieber, 1998), a network of independent enterprises (Bultje, van Wijk, 1998), units inside an organization (IMPACT, 1998), a legally network of independent enterprises with economic interdependencies (Sidow, 1996). In traditional environment the regulation inside an organization was easer to determine, due to the internal character of decisions and control processes with an establish hierarchy and authority. In this context, the ethical dimension was about behavior inside the enterprise. But according to new design forms, the control and decision process are crossing more than one enterprise, making more complex the regulation process. It is necessary to shift the regulation from hierarchies to other types of mechanism as self adjustments. Sometimes organizations sign up explicit agreements, but in many ones they work on the basis of implicit agreements (Rottering, 1993). That could provoke opportunistic behaviors. In that circumstances, the ethical issues are critical in the performance of an enterprise that is organize in a virtual way, and ethical considerations should be made during the organization design process. In this paper we will analyze those ethical considerations from the point of view of business organization design, focusing on information technology based virtual forms.

REFERENCES

TAYLOR F., (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Row. New York.

WIGAND R., PICOT A., REICHWALD R., (1997). Information, Organiaztion and Management. Expanding Markets and Corporate Boundaries. Wiley. West Sussex, Uk.

IMPACT PROGRAMME (1998). The IMPACT Programme, Exploring the Wired-Up World – Best Practice in Managing Virtual Organizations, The Report of Working Group 4 of Project ACHIEVE, http://www.achieve.ch.

TAPSCOTT D., CASTON A., (1993). Paradigm Shift. The new promise of information technology. McGraw Hill. New York.
KUHN, T., (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

APPLEGATE L., (1994). Managin in an Information Age: Transforming the Organization for the 1990s, en Baskerville R, Smithson S, Ngwenyama O, DeGross J.I. Elsevier Science B.V. North Holland.

SIEBER P., (1998). Viertuelle Unternehmen in der IT-Branche, die Wechselwirkung zwischen Internet-Nutzung, Organisation und Strategy, Berner betriebswirtschafliche, Band 19, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, Velag Paul Haupt, p. 258.

BULTJE RENE, VAN WIJK JACOLIENE, (1998). Taxonomy of Virtual Organizations, based on definitions, characteristics and typology, in VoNet: The Newsletter @ http://www.virtual-organization.net, 2, pág 16.

SYDOW J., (1996). Erfolg als Vetrauensorganisation? En Office Management, 7-8, pág 10-13.

ROTERING J., (1993). Zwischenbetriebliche kooperation als alternative Organisationsform. Schäffel-Poeschl. Stuttgart.

AUTHOR

Paul B. de Laat

ABSTRACT

The open source software movement has grown into a threat for corporate software development. In this article, the ways are explored in which firms try to come to terms with the processes that are characteristic of open source development. It is argued that they have opened up several new kinds of networks that apply open source principles. Unavoidably, these developments touch upon ethical questions. On the one hand, the clash of corporate and hacker work cultures does not turn out to be necessarily counterproductive. On the other, the principles of open source as a movement can be seen to come under severe strain.