Note
that the questions recapitulate the arguments presented in the chapter rather
than extend or augment them with others. Note the websites.
Johnson Chapter 2.
Philosophical Ethics
Those who took IFSC 1110 were
exposed to the classical ethical positions described here. Just because Cyber
Ethics is viewed as something new, giving ethicists a chance to develop some
new principles to govern the new possibilities of the virtual space, it does
not mean that these traditional approaches to ethical decision making will go
away. Indeed, we will see these positions referenced over and over again as
Cyber Ethics develops.
Most people have intuitive
understanding of good and bad, right and wrong, fair and unfair (this is a
legal necessity for being found responsible for your actions). Philosophical
ethics seeks to examine this intuition for logical consistency. Social
scientists study how the intuition is formed, but philosophers ask about the
rationality of positions regardless of their popularity. The philosophical
critique pursues a dialectic that iteratively probes a position as the
defenders of the position iteratively refine the position’s revealed
weaknesses.
“We come to understand the ideas
that underpin our moral beliefs. We develop deeper and more consistent beliefs
and we come to understand how moral ideas are interrelated and interdependent.”
Normative and Descriptive
Claims: “..the aim of
this book is to help you understand how people ought to behave when they use
computers and what rules or policies ought to be adopted with regard to
computer and information technology.”
Ethical Relativism
Negative Claim: There are no universal moral norms.
Positive Claim: individuals must decide from themselves what is ethical
OR ethical behavior varies from society to society (hence right is determined
by group agreement).
Facts supporting relativism:
These
facts support a descriptive claim that ethics is relative.
The
observations cannot support a normative claim: the jump from “is” to
“ought.” These facts do not disprove that there are universal moral rights and
wrongs because the diversity of practical ethics may be hiding universal
underlying foundational principles. Moreover, to assert that ethics is culture
specific is to imply that to be ethical is to be bound by the dictates of your
culture (despite your own misgivings, hence there IS a universal moral
principle that tells everyone when someone is behaving ethically and when they
are not. To deny that such universal principles exist and then to assert one
that applies to everyone, everywhere, is a contradiction that forces the
relativist to back off a position of ABSOLUTE relativism.
“Often
what ethical relativists are trying to do is make the point that no one should
denigrate, ridicule, and disrespect people who have beliefs that are different
from their own…you shouldn’t judge people from other times or places by the
standards of your own morality.” This seems a worthy goal, but it also seems
like a universal principle that all ethical people must observe.
Problems
that Relativism suffers from:
Consequences, not intentions, determine the rightness or wrongness of human actions. Actions are good when they produce happiness, bad when they result in unhappiness. “The basic principle is this: Everyone ought to act so as to bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Utilitarians
conclude that only happiness is valued for itself (intrinsic) while other
virtues are valued as means for producing happiness (instrumental, extrinsic).
We can ask “Why?” about every motivation except happiness, since happiness is
the ultimate desire of human beings. However, utilitarianism seeks the total
happiness of mankind, not of individuals (egoism).
Rule-utilitarianism
focuses on practices that promote the general welfare (tell the truth, keep
your promises, etc.). It is foreseen that if everyone follows these rules
everyone will be happier.
Act-utilitarianism
is willing to break the rules when it seems that the immediate consequences
merit it.
Utilitarians
are relativists: “In one situation, it may be right to lie, in another
situation in which the circumstances are different, it may be wrong to lie…So,
even though utilitarians assert a universal principle, the universal principle
has varying implications depending on the situation.”
Determining
which course of action maximizes total happiness is tricky, and it might seem
that it is always good to sacrifice a few to the benefit of the majority.
Utilitarians argue that this kind of reasoning gives too much weight to
short-term consequences, that valuing every individual’s happiness actually
results in greater happiness in the long-term for everyone. However, it is
possible to imagine circumstances that require the sacrifice the few, and
though counter-intuitive, that sacrifice would be ethical.
Case
study on access to dialysis: should those with more redeeming social and
economic potential be given higher priority, or should the process be random
(eliminating anyone’s value judgment using any criteria)?
“The
important point for our purposes is that the formulation of utilitarianism we
have been considering leads to methods of distribution that seem to be unfair
or unjust. So while the core idea in utilitarianism seems plausible,…
utilitarianism does not seem to adequately handle the distribution of benefits
and burdens” [treating some humans and means to an end to be enjoyed by other
humans].
We have discussed the idea that ethics is individual--what is right for me may not be right for you, and that the ethics of an action are determined by its consequences--even if unintended. The emphasis of utilitarianism is to evaluate and predict the consequences of actions, choosing the alternative that promises the greatest good over all.
Yet
a different approach based in the saying "the ends do not justify the
means." The deontologist derives codes of behavior based upon intrinsic
principles of human nature and the concept of morality. Humans are unique in
their rationality and their ability to use that rational capacity to make
choices. Kant stated a categorical imperative regarding human beings: Never
treat another human being merely as a means but always as an end.
The
case study on survey confidentiality was used to compare the ethical reasoning.
For consequentialists, the professor should code the survey data herself
because that maintains her credibility and protected her opportunity to do
future research. For the deontologist reasons that to ignore her promise is to
relegate the subjects to non-human status (as in a survey of animal behaviors)
and just as a means to generate the report. Because the subjects ARE humans,
the professor must respect them enough to code the survey data herself.
From
the categorical imperative we can conclude that human beings should be able to
"expect" respectful behavior from their fellows, that the obligation
on everyone to follow the imperative implies that everyone has
"rights".
negative
rights require restraint
by others. positive rights others have a duty to behave for the rights
holder. My right to life implies not only that you may not kill me, but that
you must help me when my life is endangered.
legal
rights are created by
laws, but or natural or human rights are independent of laws and are derived
from an understanding of human nature. Utilitarians might argue for legal
rights but not for human rights.
social
contract theorists
extend the character of human nature from individuals to groups, justifying the
need for government and establishing moral obligations on the group to provide
for its members. This idea develops the concept of "justice."
John
Rawls proposed that fair contracts between individuals are impeded by
self-interest. Therefore the "rules" formed my groups to distribute
justice are not generally fair, but favor the politically powerful. Rawls
proposed that "justice is blind" be taken seriously and thus that the
rules should be made by rational but disinterested people, who are
ignorant about their own status in society and ignorant about the specific
people who will be affected by the rules:
"These
general principles assure that no matter where an individual ends up in the
lottery of life (in which characteristics of intelligence, talents, physical
abilities, and so on, are distributed), he or she would have liberty and
opportunity. He or she would have a fair shot at a decent life."
The
point is that rights-claims and fairness-claims "generally presume a much
more complicated set of claims. Such claims should never be accepted as
primitive truths." "What gives you the right" or "That is
unfair" manifests the speaker's assumptions about the nature of justice.
In completing her survey of Philosophical Ethics, Johnson
notes that Virtue Ethics, which deals with human character, has relevance to
Computer Ethics mostly in regard to the individual conduct of the computer
professional. We would expect that the ethical professional would be a person
of good character, and that any person of good character would likely conduct
herself or himself ethically.
"Virtue theory seems to
fill a gap left by other theories we considered, because it addresses the
question of moral character, while the other theories focused primarily on
action and decision making."
"In examining problems or issues, it is important to distinguish levels of analysis, in particular that between macro and micro level issues or approaches. One can approach a problem from the point of view of social practices and public policy, or from the point of view of individual choice."
"the
task of computer ethics involves working with traditional moral concepts and
theories, and extending them to situations with somewhat new features."
This chapter has reviewed the primary traditional approaches to explicating
"proper" (ought) human behavior at the same time that the readings
from the Baird collection have highlighted the novel conditions of cyberspace
to which we seek to apply these traditional approaches.
In
the next chapter we begin the extension by addressing the right conduct of
professionals. Most of human relationships that are governed by professional
ethics, consultant/client, employer/employee, colleague/colleague,
society/expert, etc., are common to all professions: medicine, law,
engineering, accounting, teaching, etc., so the concept of a profession and
then the character of the computer profession must be examined to see what is
inherited.
After
chapter 3 both texts turn to "issues" related to Cyberspace that need
policy. Some of these relate to being good citizens in Cyberspace, and some
relate to the governance of Cyberspace (interpreted broadly to include all computer
applications), and some relate to the intersection of Cyberspace with
traditional human interactions [see list below]. Thus, chapter 3 deals with
micro issues, citizenship deals with micro issues, and the rest deal with
society's efforts to develop macro policies for cyberspace.
Assorted
issues in Cyberspace:
This chapter begins with three scenarios that pose questions
about the responsibility that individuals with special knowledge and
understanding owe to those who employ them and to the users of their software.
These stories could just as easily be told about an engineer who is worried
about the risks of an automobile design, or an architect who is concerned for
the ability of a building to sustain a catastrophe, or stock analyst who works
for a company that helps finance the company whose stock she recommends. Thus
we address the concept of special responsibilities of those trusted for their
knowledge.
Strongly differentiated occupations "carry with them
special rights and special responsibilities. Indeed, sometimes professional
rights and responsibilities are so special that they are exceptions or
additions to ordinary morality." However, the computer professional has
not be given the kind of special rights accorded doctors and lawyers and law
enforcement personnel. But, like engineers and accountants, their special
expertise is relied upon by their employers and the public.
"Another way in which occupational roles have to be taken into account in
ethical analysis has to do with the efficacy of individuals acting in
employed roles...The actions of computer professionals may directly or
indirectly have powerful effects, on individuals and on the social and physical
world in which we live. These effects may be good or bad and may be foreseen or
unforeseen."
Professions have been characterized (empirically) as those
occupations whose members
A profession must be able to insure a good that society is willing to award a monopoly for quality control. Thus, a social contract is formed with rights balanced with obligations. If the profession does not regulate itself to the satisfaction of society, the special status is revoked. While it is clear that Law and Medicine have acquired the full status of a profession in society, it is not clear that engineering, accounting, or education have. Usually the government is involved in licensing or recognizing the licensing of professional bodies (the court system does not allow lawyers not admitted to the bar to practice, but it allows non-lawyers to be judges). On the other hand, states license teachers, CPAs and some engineers, but there is ample opportunity for unlicensed practitioners. At the present time, computer professionals are less organized than teachers.
Increasingly
white-collar occupations are becoming specialized and qualifying as
"knowledge workers." Additionally, there is a growing specialization
of all kinds of technicians supporting traditional blue-collar crafts. Thus the
first criteria of a profession, esoteric knowledge, is not helpful in
distinguishing a profession. The second criteria, autonomy, is also broadly met
as subject-oriented societies spring up among knowledge workers that are not
just trade groups, but are concerned with the domain of practice of the
knowledge worker. There are now thousands of "professional societies"
and increasingly these organizations conduct training of their members,
establish codes of practice, lobby for curricula in schools, and seek
recognition from government. Thus we see that lots of occupations strive to
meet the first four criteria. What distinguishes the full profession from the
wantabes is level of social good that the profession provides society and the
degree of control of entry into practice.
Is
Computing a Profession?
With Education and Engineering (but with much less history) computing struggles
with its breadth and the consequent lack of control of entry. Modeled on
Engineering computing is formalizing a few branches of practice that have clear
enough impact as to involve govenment interest in insuring quality practice.
Software engineering is a test case (in Texas).
Computing
is not well organized (there are too many professional associations) and there
is no agreed criteria for competent practice (some high school students do
well). There is no equivalent to professional certification: the PE. Moreover,
the ACM has argued AGAINST adopting entry criteria or standard competencies,
believing that the field is too immature to codify.
Ethical concerns are associated with each kind of
professional realtionship:
Different
roles may entail different relationships: Systems analyst has a relationship
with the client but the implementing programmer has a relationship with the
analyst (as an agent?) as well as the client (as the ultimate consumer).
Balancing Responsibilities. duty to employer is more
immediate and tends to obscure other relationship unless the computer
professional is a free-lance consultant. Ultimate user of software product
often remote and product is embedded in a large system where professional's
contribution is nearly invisible. Not like a typical medical doctor's practice.
Consequently computer professionals often are faced with whistle-blowing:
turning on the employer in defense of society, the profession, or a client.
Codes of Professional Conduct are directed at the professional but
also at the employer or clients and the general public. The different codes
developed by ACM and IEEE "are remarkably similar in what they identify as
important for computer professionals.. [and]..if the code contains rules that
protect the public, and promote worthy practices, then their self-serving
character is not problematic."
The codes serve as:
Collective
Responsibility. "It
is important in thinking about issues of professional ethics not to fall into
the trap of thinking only about individuals--individual responsibility and
individual decision making." Collective action can foster better public
policy and educate the public to the risks of some applications and the duties
of professionals. "Computer professional organizations can raise awareness
of ...issue[s], undertake research that individuals alone cannot do, and make
recommendations that are backed by the power and authority of the entire
profession...[A]ll of us (computer professionals, the public, employers, and
clients) benefit when computer professionals, individually and collectively,
work to shape computer systems for the good of humanity."
Becoming
a professional entails joining a professional society and contributing to its
effectiveness.
This chapter describes behavior on the internet that has
moral implications and for which we can derive ethical norms. The scenarios
illustrate
The
distinction which justifies Cyberethics as a sub-species is the
distinctive way that the Internet magnifies the impact of behaviors referenced
above. The Internet is a communications medium which
The
global character is shared by print, radio, and television, but those media are
one-to-many. Moreover, there is a significant lead-time to produce messages and
significant expense to distribute them. The Internet is uniquely interactive
and permits both inexpensive "pull" publishing and well as allowing
relatively inexpensive "push" publishing. "Individuals whose
actions are instrumented through the Internet have much more power than
individuals acting without it... The Internet has created a new kind of
environment in which individuals who want to wreak havoc can do so with
relatively little effort..." The current Internet is a fragile environment
which is entirely exposed to the malicious (worms propagate around the world in
less than 10 minutes).
We
will have two presentations from the readings on anonymity on the Internet
which deal both with the desire to withhold information from the system at the
same time realize benefits from its use, and with the desire to fabricate
identities and interact with a virtual world through the pseudonym (avatar).
However, the Internet permits the appropriation of real identities (imposters)
with the consequence that actions are attributed to an individual who did not
perform them. "the kind and degree of anonymity we have on the Internet is
a function of the link-ability of information about individuals who are acting
and interacting. This is important from an ethical perspective because it
affects accountability and trust."
Replication
is not only free, but software or data may be "cloned" without
inconveniencing the owner. Furthermore, replication is virtually automatic when
the Internet is used for communication. Copies of whatever was transmitted are
stored and even archived at many points along the transmission path. Thus, in
contrast to normal communication for which effort must be made to preserve a
message, with Internet communication, effort must be made to eradicate a message.
As the message becomes disconnected from its maker, it can also be easily
edited and co-opted for purposes outside the maker's intentions.
"Reproducibility has moral implications because it goes counter to our
traditional notions of property and personal privacy. Our notions of property
are associated with the idea of control; an owner can control the use of her
property. Our notion of privacy are based on a physical world in which actions
are performed and then they are gone; they are irretrievable."
What are the moral responsibilities of those who can exercise power via the Internet? Hackers argue
"So, hacking is not justified. It causes harm; it violates legitimate privacy and property rights; it often deprives users of access to their own computer systems and to the Internet; and, it compels investment in security when the invested resources might have been used for other activities...[However}..Implicit in the hacker arguments is a concern to take advantage of the enormous potential of the Internet for spreading and sharing information...So, while hacking is disruptive, dangerous, and unjustified, discussion provoked by hackers and hacking--of what should be allowed and not allowed on the Internet--should not be squelched too quickly."
The
second category of illegal Internet behavior was simply to propagate
traditional criminal activities to cyberspace. "the Internet creates a new
instrumentation for familiar or common crimes. This is not all it does, but it
does not exactly thrust us into entirely unfamiliar moral territory; rather the
new instrumentation allows us to do things in new ways and calls on us to think
about what the new capabilities mean for our moral ideas, our moral values, and
principles." One might argue against any new technology that made tempting
immoral activity: guns make killing easier, atomic weapons make winning wars
easier, so ought both be abandoned and condemned?
"Violations
of netiquette may be considered unethical but they are not illegal...Law comes
into play when informal convention fails, but law alone is not sufficient to
regulate human behavior. Much, if not most, of the civility and ordered
character of social life comes from individuals being socialized and habituated
to behave in certain ways and not just from the existence of law and the threat
of punishment." What of freedom of speech? what of the rights of the
non-conformist? What if we COULD individually filter out what we as individuals
find objectionable without preventing another from access what they wanted,
would the world be a better place?
Behavior
in Cyberspace ought to be such that everyone can beneficially participate.
Therefore there must be policies that inhibit harmful illegal activities and
promote civil interaction, yet these need not all be legislated. Technologies
such as encryption discourage hacking and identity theft, and the Internet II
address space plus faster transmission make possible safeguards that are
currently prohibitive in terms of overhead. Misbehavior can be constrained by
technology more effectively than by the courts. However, education and
socialization can blunt the incentive for mischief and lack of reward and
approval can redirect the energies of thrill seekers. In coordinated
combination, law, education, and social pressure can go far to civilizing
cyberspace. Will it then become as dull as TV when it is mellowed to be
inoffensive to the masses?
We all know how easy it is to collect information on the
web. The premise is that if it is published, it is fair game to collect and
correlate. The difference today is that public records, newspaper records, even
membership records are now much easier to mine than when they were available only
in print and perhaps only in one physical location (thus we have changed the
scale of available information (more stuff is published and it is easier to
monitor activities), the scale of availability, and consequently, the scale of
information gathering).
"The computers and privacy issue is often framed as an issue that calls for a balancing of the needs of those who use information about individuals (typically government agencies and private institutions) against the needs or rights of those individuals whom the information is about." This biases the debate. "The issue is framed so that we have to balance the good things achieved through information gathering and exchange against the desire or need for personal privacy...[O]nce the benefits of information gathering and exchange are on the table, the burden of proof is on privacy advocates to show either that there is something harmful about information gathering and exchange or that there is some benefit to be gained from constraining information gathering.
What is it and why is it valuable? Is it a right? Privacy is used to encompass aspects of individual freedom, autonomy, and confidentiality. Is it a means or an end? As a means it fosters the development of relationships by building trust and intimacy (lawyer, priest, spouse). As an end it is an ingredient of autonomy, fundamental for a functioning self.
Information
mediates Relationships
which differ because of the information shared. Diverse relationships cannot
exist unless information sharing is controlled (Rachels). "[L]oss of
control of information reduces your ability to establish and influence the
relationships you have and the character of those relationship." While
this has always been true about humankind, today it is more difficult for
individuals to cope with the situation (for the reasons of scale already
mentioned.
Individual-Organization
Relationships are most
affected by electronic information gathering and exchange. Face-to-face
relationships provide for self-correcting data exchange, but relationships with
record-keeping organizations are more difficult for individuals to monitor.
"To summarize: Individuals control what relationships they have and the
nature of those relationships by controlling the flow of information to others;
when individuals have no control over information that others have about them,
there is a significant reduction in their autonomy." However, the US
government has taken a piecemeal approach to regulating information collection
and use in different areas of our society as abuses arise, rather than focusing
on protecting privacy per se. The abuse must be flagrant and the record-keeping
organization must not be crippled by the restriction. Clearly the Patriot Act
signals a swing to favor security and efficiency of government over privacy of citizens.
Instead of considering privacy as an individual right, Johnson suggests that it should be considered a social good. If record keeping and analysis is unfettered, then citizens loose their autonomy in that they are subject to criticism for anything they might do. "But if the consequences of trying something new, expressing a new idea, acting unconventionally are too negative, there is no doubt that few citizens will take the risk. Democracy will diminish." However, what keeps surveillance from being taken to the extreme?
Counter
Arguments: (1) only those who do wrong fear from publicity. (2) people choose
to give up privacy for security, convenience, etc.
These
arguments are weakened by the impact of error in the database, lags in updates,
and potential for [unauthorized] manipulation. Therefore the existence of
extensive database pose a considerable threat. Yet in a records-based society
the quality of life is considerably diminished if one foregoes transactions that
produce records. "So, while there are many things an individual can do to
protect his or her personal privacy, the cost is extremely high and goes
counter to the idea of living in a free society."
Code of Fair Information Practices developed in 1973 and has been influencial
Note
the erosion of these principles in current practice.
Europe
is much more stringent on data repositories: Principles Relating to Data
Quality. "Privacy protection in the United States could be improved if the
United States were compelled to harmonize its laws with those of the EU, but it
is also possible that EU protection will give way to the U.S. model."
Conceptual change and Legislative Initiatives
"Our
American forefathers were concerned about protecting us from the power of
government (as they should have been). They did not envision the enormous power
that private organizations might have over the lives of individuals...We need
to consider broad chagnes that would address this gap in our tradition."
Should we regulate information repositories like we regulate infrastructure
(water, electricity, trains, highways, etc.) so that such respositories would
be licenses and inspected to insure their proper use and upkeep (see Sweden's
Data Inspection Board)?
Computer
Professionals at the gateway
which was replaced in the 1992 code with "Respect the privacy of others." [can you speculate why the de-emphasis? What has the SE code to say about privacy?]
Apply technology
Tools
to surf and mail anonymously, and personal cryptographic techniques that can
protect confidentiality.
Self-regulation
of institutions
Create
and enforce privacy policies (with advice from computer professionals).
Personal
action
You
can be wary about communicating information to organizations and make them
aware of your concern (unhappy customers provoke action). You can negotiate
with record keeping organizations about their records and make them aware of
your demand for accuracy and proper use.
Conclusion "Privacy is, perhaps, the most
important of the ethical issues surrounding computer and information
technology...Protecting personal privacy is not easy and is not likely to get
easier...This issue is not going to go away until we do something about
it."
"When software was first created, it was considered a
new type of entity...And it is the ownership of this new entity that has posed
daunting ethical and legal issues."
"The legal and moral issues
are inextricably tied together in a number of ways. If laws set up unfair
arrangements, then the moral critique of those arrangements is relevant to the
interpretation of the law. Deciding what the law should be in a domain such as
software ownership is in part a moral matter."
Are the present laws (based upon
experience with physical and intellectual property) adequate for computer
software? "Should computer software be owned at all? Should it be treated
as property?"
"I argue here that the
moral arguments do not show that computer software must be treated as
property..Intellectual property rights are socially created rights and a
variety of social arrangements are possible that are morally acceptable...I
argue that it is wrong to make a copy [of proprietary software] because it is
illegal, but not because there is some pre-legal immorality involved in the
act."
"To understand the software ownership issue, it is essential to understand what software is, and this requires understanding the distinction between algorithms, object programs (and code), and source programs (and code)...intellectual property law treats each of these aspects of computer software in different ways."
"In both copyright and patent law, there are limitations on what can be owned (claimed). In copyright law, expressions of ideas can be owned but not the ideas themselves. In patent law, applications or implementations of ideas can be owned, but abstract ideas, mathematical algorithms, mental steps, or laws of nature cannot be owned."
copyright: Franklin v. Apple established "that computer programs in object code are copyrightable."
"The
law allows copyrighted material to be appropriated by others without permission
if something significant is added to the copyrighted material, such that a new
expression is produced."
In Whelan v. Jaslow the court stated that "copyright protection of
computer programs may extend beyond a program's literal code to its structure,
sequence and organization."
"Yet other more recent cases have attempted (and in many cases succeeded)
in extending copyright protection to the look and feel of a program and other
"nonliteral" elements of programs."
trade
secrecy Companies have a
problem meeting the requirement of secrecy on employees and software licensees.
"Once the source program is available, the secret is less likely to remain
secret, and trade secrecy laws may not apply."
patents grant monopoly use and come in three
varieties: utility, design, and plant forms, of which the first is usually
applied to software. Consider these points:
Two theories of property:
Natural rights Arguments, following Locke, "a
person acquires a right of ownership in something by mixing his or her labor
with it...Since one' labor is an extension of one's body, one's labor cannot be
owned by another."
Rebuttal:
"The arguments for ownership of software seem best framed as arguments for a social and economic right to the capacity to sell, and potentially make money from, the development of computer software."
It
has been suggested by some experts that a new concept of property rights needs
to be legislated just for software. However, there is not enough concern to
overcome the inertia. Thus we have the laws we have.
"Is
it wrong for an individual to make a copy [not a backup] of proprietary
software?"
"The thrust of this chapter has been to move discussion of property rights in computer software away from the idea that property rights are given in nature, and towards the idea that we can and should develop property rights that serve us well in the long run."
· What if any acts in a virtual world are immoral?
· Who is harmed and how can the harm be repaired?
· Who is responsible for decisions made by a computer program (or for the authenticity of data maintained in electronic form--especially that collected by other programs)?
· Given the ability to “publish” on a server anywhere in the world is the server’s owner responsible for everything published on it?
· Who was responsible for the Y2K problem and who will be responsible for the next software convention that eventually turns out to be short-sighted?
“We could categorize the issues in terms for the type of technology that is at issue. Somewhat different issues arise when there is a problem with hardware, software, data, the Internet, and with different types of software—graphical interfaces, database management systems, security systems, or different uses of the Internet.”
Accountable: “appropriate agent to respond for an event or incident or situation.”
A vendor who sells faulty software with false promises may be deemed responsible in all four senses.
Vendors hire designers and programmers to create software products that the vendor then markets. The vendor relies on the expertise of the designers and programmers and their attestation that the software will behave as specified. On occasion the vendor relies on the analyst’s expertise that the software specifications are proper to automate a designated functionality. Users rely on marketing information and build software into their activities (but at their own risk because the vendor has sold only the right to run the program and required in the license agreement absolution from liability from any actions that the program might take when it is executing, good or bad). Where does ethics apply in the “buyer beware” software sales environment?
o “To treat the buy as an end [rather than a means], however, the seller must be honest about what he or she is selling and refrain from using coercion. If a salesperson gets a customer to buy something by deceiving the customer about what he or she is getting, of if the salesperson manipulates a customer into buying something the customer doesn’t really want, then the salesperson has used the customer merely as a means to the salesperson’s ends.”
o “We might say that honesty in selling software is a matter of answering all customer questions and, of course, answering them accurately, to the best of the salesperson’s ability.” Does this require the answers to be given in terms that the customer understand? Does this require that the salesman verify that the customer has asked the right questions to be able to make a valid assessment of how well the software will meet the customer’s needs—now and in the future? Should salesmen sell “solutions” rather than software?
o “Avoiding coercion is, like being honest, both complex and unquestionably an important part of the ethical character of buying and selling. To force someone to do something is to treat them as a thing, not a rational agent capable of choosing for themselves.”
Concern any wrongful civil acts other than breach of contract. Products are subject to strict liability and services are subject to claims of negligence.
· Products can be both tangible and intangible but the product law applies differently to custom products vs. commodity products.
The imposition of strict liability for mass-marketed software is justified on utilitarian grounds because the vendor is in control of the software’s code and therefore is in the best position to measure the risks inherent in its use, and further, the vendor is in a position to spread the cost of liability over the class of users.
“The Y2K problem is a salient example of what happens when business, government agencies, and individuals become dependent on computer and information technology. The more dependent we are, the higher the stakes when things go wrong: hence, the greater significance of working out the responsibilities of all those involved.”
The fact that few people were actually harmed at the turn of the millennium (other than the economic cost paid by the economy) let the software industry off the hook. The licensing movement for software engineers aims at fixing liability for failure of critical software systems. Yet there is so much software and it is so easy to co-mingle programmer effort that it is difficult to imagine how a failure can be traced to a coder. Indeed most software failure occur at an interface where modules interact and there the designer must be held at fault if the interface was not clean. But often the cause of software failure cannot be traced, especially so for embedded software—all we know is that the system fails and software will be blamed if no evidence of hardware failure can be found in the wreckage.
Social Implications and Social Values
Approach
Technology and Social Change
Embedded Values, Enhanced and Impeded Values
Democratic Values in the Internet
“The moral idea underlying democracy is the idea that individuals are sovereign over themselves and to be recognized as such they must have some say in the governments by which they are ruled. It follows from this moral basis that not only should citizens have a vote, but also a high degree of freedom.”
Access and the Digital Divide
“Because computer and information technology and the Internet are such powerful resources, democratic societies have to ask how these powerful resources are being distributed….[But because these resources are tools} the access issue is always about something else in addition to access, something that access leads to, something that can be achieved with, or can be better achieved with, access.”
Free Expression
“Freedom of speech goes to the heart of the Internet-democracy connection because free-speech is (in American democracy, at least) essential for government accountability an citizenship…In a utilitarian framework, democracy is justified on grounds that it is much more likely to lead to social progress and individual development.”
Overarching and Future Issues
It is most important “to remember that technology is value-laden. It is created and shaped by human interests and social values, and when it is used, it affects social relations and social values. In this chapter, I have used democracy as the lens through which to view social changes taking place as a result of the Internet. Democracy is an important human value that should continue to be used in evaluating social change, though there are other values that also might be used such as community, identity, and autonomy. Increasing use of the Internet affects each of these and it is worth considering just how they are being affected.”