IntroductionIn 1948, a technical paper called "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" appeared in an obscure scientific journal. Its author was Claude Shannon, a diffident young scientist working in the Bell Labs Mathematical Research Group. Shannon's paper proposed the "bit" as the basic unit for measuring information. In that same year, the transistor was discovered at the same Bell Labs in New Jersey. Although very few people noticed what was happening, the incipient information technology revolution was now underway. The discovery of the transistor was crucial, but the elaboration of a commensurate information theory was equally decisive. Thanks to Shannon, information was soon regarded as the "blood and the fuel, the vital principle of all reality" (Gleick 2011, p. 8). Shannon's information theory served as a bridge between mathematics to electrical engineering and then to digital computing (Gleick 2011).The issues that pertain to information ethics (such as ownership and access) existed long before the digital era. Nonetheless, the transition from atoms to bits, which made possible information and communications technologies, meant that more attention than ever before would be focused on information use. It also meant that "information ethics" assumed greater urgency, as users and producers of information searched for fundamental rules that would prescribe how information should be responsibly collected, stored, and accessed.The evolution of information ethics and its merging with computer ethics is an intriguing story that bears some scrutiny for the lessons it can teach us about the nature of information and the task of controlling it fairly. The purpose of this essay is not to trace this history in detail, but to highlight its salient moments and to examine how information ethics took a definitive shape thanks to the discovery of information's digital character. It will also address several controversial topics such as the uniqueness of computer ethics issues, the need for a proper methodology, and this discipline's structural foundations.The Genesis of Information EthicsThe two phrases "information ethics" (IE) and "computer ethics" (CE) are often used interchangeably but in the past they have had very different connotations. There has never been a complete dichotomy between IE and CE but enough discontinuity to keep them apart for some period. Information ethics as it was first conceived by scholars like Kostrewsi and Oppenheim (1980), Capurro (1988), and Hauptman (1988) represented a broad field of study. The Journal of Information Ethics (founded by Hauptman) has certainly played a key role in promoting this broad sub-discipline of applied ethics, which encompasses all informational areas.According to Hauptman (2002), IE is fundamentally concerned with the "production, dissemination, storage, retrieval, security, and application of information within an ethical context" (p. 121) This definition adds some welcome precision to IE. In
1948年，一篇名为《通信的数学理论》的技术论文发表在一本不知名的科学杂志上。它的作者是克劳德·香农，一个在贝尔实验室数学研究小组工作的缺乏自信的年轻科学家。香农的论文提出“比特”作为测量信息的基本单位。同年，晶体管在新泽西州的贝尔实验室被发现。尽管很少有人注意到发生了什么，但一场早期的信息技术革命已经开始。晶体管的发现是至关重要的，但相应的信息理论的阐述同样具有决定性。多亏了香农，信息很快被视为“血液和燃料，所有现实的重要原则”(Gleick 2011, p. 8)。香农的信息理论充当了数学到电子工程再到数字计算之间的桥梁(Gleick 2011)。与信息伦理有关的问题(如所有权和访问权)早在数字时代之前就存在了。尽管如此，从原子到比特的转变使信息和通信技术成为可能，这意味着人们将比以往任何时候都更加关注信息的使用。这也意味着“信息伦理”具有更大的紧迫性，因为信息的使用者和生产者都在寻找基本规则，规定如何负责任地收集、存储和访问信息。信息伦理的演变及其与计算机伦理的融合是一个耐人探味的故事，它可以让我们对信息的本质和公平控制信息的任务有所了解。本文的目的不是详细追溯这段历史，而是强调它的突出时刻，并研究信息伦理是如何由于信息的数字特征的发现而最终形成的。它还将讨论几个有争议的话题，如计算机伦理问题的独特性，对适当方法的需求，以及这门学科的结构基础。信息伦理的起源“信息伦理”(IE)和“计算机伦理”(CE)这两个短语经常互换使用，但在过去它们有着非常不同的内涵。IE和CE之间从来没有一个完全的二分法，但有足够的不连续性使它们在一段时间内分开。信息伦理最早由Kostrewsi和Oppenheim(1980)、Capurro(1988)和Hauptman(1988)等学者提出，代表了一个广泛的研究领域。《信息伦理学杂志》(由Hauptman创办)无疑在推动应用伦理学这一广泛的分支学科方面发挥了关键作用，它涵盖了所有信息领域。根据Hauptman(2002)的说法，IE从根本上关注的是“在道德背景下信息的生产、传播、存储、检索、安全和应用”(第121页)。这一定义为IE增加了一些受欢迎的精确性。在其初期，IE处理的是一般的伦理问题，如适当的所有权、保密、信息偏差、可靠性标准和分配正义。准确、公正的信息具有内在价值，但也是知识(定义为合理的信念)所必需的，因为它提供了足够的证据来合理地证明一个人的主张。例如，知识可以建立在归纳法的基础上，这是一种从特定实例或信息片段推导出一般结论的推理形式。因此，信息是必须有效和谨慎管理的关键资源或资产。没有信息和知识，没有人可以茁壮成长或实现自我实现，无论他的文化背景或他的基本目标。正如阿奎那(1961)所指出的那样，“人类苦难的很大一部分是错误和欺骗。”根据Floridi(2008)，信息伦理在其最初阶段主要是由这种基于资源的信息和知识观驱动的。…
{"title":"Information and Computer Ethics: A Brief History","authors":"R. Spinello","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.17","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionIn 1948, a technical paper called \"A Mathematical Theory of Communication\" appeared in an obscure scientific journal. Its author was Claude Shannon, a diffident young scientist working in the Bell Labs Mathematical Research Group. Shannon's paper proposed the \"bit\" as the basic unit for measuring information. In that same year, the transistor was discovered at the same Bell Labs in New Jersey. Although very few people noticed what was happening, the incipient information technology revolution was now underway. The discovery of the transistor was crucial, but the elaboration of a commensurate information theory was equally decisive. Thanks to Shannon, information was soon regarded as the \"blood and the fuel, the vital principle of all reality\" (Gleick 2011, p. 8). Shannon's information theory served as a bridge between mathematics to electrical engineering and then to digital computing (Gleick 2011).The issues that pertain to information ethics (such as ownership and access) existed long before the digital era. Nonetheless, the transition from atoms to bits, which made possible information and communications technologies, meant that more attention than ever before would be focused on information use. It also meant that \"information ethics\" assumed greater urgency, as users and producers of information searched for fundamental rules that would prescribe how information should be responsibly collected, stored, and accessed.The evolution of information ethics and its merging with computer ethics is an intriguing story that bears some scrutiny for the lessons it can teach us about the nature of information and the task of controlling it fairly. The purpose of this essay is not to trace this history in detail, but to highlight its salient moments and to examine how information ethics took a definitive shape thanks to the discovery of information's digital character. It will also address several controversial topics such as the uniqueness of computer ethics issues, the need for a proper methodology, and this discipline's structural foundations.The Genesis of Information EthicsThe two phrases \"information ethics\" (IE) and \"computer ethics\" (CE) are often used interchangeably but in the past they have had very different connotations. There has never been a complete dichotomy between IE and CE but enough discontinuity to keep them apart for some period. Information ethics as it was first conceived by scholars like Kostrewsi and Oppenheim (1980), Capurro (1988), and Hauptman (1988) represented a broad field of study. The Journal of Information Ethics (founded by Hauptman) has certainly played a key role in promoting this broad sub-discipline of applied ethics, which encompasses all informational areas.According to Hauptman (2002), IE is fundamentally concerned with the \"production, dissemination, storage, retrieval, security, and application of information within an ethical context\" (p. 121) This definition adds some welcome precision to IE. In ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"17-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the legal landscape of copyright (and contract, i.e., licensing), privacy, and free speech laws in the United States and assesses this landscape on a continuum, contrasting what is legal with what might be thought to be right, formed from a sense of ethical or professional responsibility. Of course, what is right in the mind of one is not so in the mind of another. The purpose of this article is not to suggest what is "right" or "wrong" for all, in terms of professional responsibility or the proper ethical response, as differing positions can be articulated, if not also defended. Rather the point is to demonstrate that the present law contains numerous examples of variation. At times the law perhaps goes too far, offering the potential for infringing use of copyrighted material, imposing excessive privacy restrictions that can impact access rights to government activity or allowing speech that some might view as harmful. At other times the law may extend too far in the other direction, curtailing access and use of copyrighted content, failing to protect privacy, or to allow for robust comment. There may, however, be times when the law though far from perfect comes much closer to the mark, with the law and a sense of responsibility, professional or otherwise, more closely aligned.Further, this discussion brings into focus the intermediary entity as arbiter of access within the information landscape. Of most interest to the readership of this publication is the focus on libraries and educational institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities. Such intermediaries are often in the best position to facilitate access, to educate, and to make fluent its constituents with respect to knowledge: knowledge that is often protected by copyright, knowledge that is the subject of debate, knowledge that necessitates the rights of free inquiry regarding it, and knowledge that may require rights of privacy extended to a record of its access or use. The intermediary may then be in a position to alert the patron, student, et al. to the points of friction between what our laws aspire to be and what a given law is at a given moment or in a given situation.Finally, the examples provided here may also enhance discussion among teachers and students of law, ethics, and policy, presenting the position that the law is neither "all-bad" or "all-good" but offering points of conflict or contrast along such a continuum. In general, it is found that when the law does not go far enough, the opportunity for a learning encounter or so-called teaching moment is created. A response to which the intermediary may find is consistent with its goals of educating or enhancing the information experience. A characteristic of examples where the law does not go far enough is often the conflict of rights created by the law that may impact other rights such as free speech, self- responsibility, or self- restraint for the benefit of others.The first examples below
{"title":"Law vs. Ethics: Conflict and Contrast in Laws Affecting the Role of Libraries, Schools, and Other Information Intermediaries","authors":"T. Lipinski","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.71","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.71","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the legal landscape of copyright (and contract, i.e., licensing), privacy, and free speech laws in the United States and assesses this landscape on a continuum, contrasting what is legal with what might be thought to be right, formed from a sense of ethical or professional responsibility. Of course, what is right in the mind of one is not so in the mind of another. The purpose of this article is not to suggest what is \"right\" or \"wrong\" for all, in terms of professional responsibility or the proper ethical response, as differing positions can be articulated, if not also defended. Rather the point is to demonstrate that the present law contains numerous examples of variation. At times the law perhaps goes too far, offering the potential for infringing use of copyrighted material, imposing excessive privacy restrictions that can impact access rights to government activity or allowing speech that some might view as harmful. At other times the law may extend too far in the other direction, curtailing access and use of copyrighted content, failing to protect privacy, or to allow for robust comment. There may, however, be times when the law though far from perfect comes much closer to the mark, with the law and a sense of responsibility, professional or otherwise, more closely aligned.Further, this discussion brings into focus the intermediary entity as arbiter of access within the information landscape. Of most interest to the readership of this publication is the focus on libraries and educational institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities. Such intermediaries are often in the best position to facilitate access, to educate, and to make fluent its constituents with respect to knowledge: knowledge that is often protected by copyright, knowledge that is the subject of debate, knowledge that necessitates the rights of free inquiry regarding it, and knowledge that may require rights of privacy extended to a record of its access or use. The intermediary may then be in a position to alert the patron, student, et al. to the points of friction between what our laws aspire to be and what a given law is at a given moment or in a given situation.Finally, the examples provided here may also enhance discussion among teachers and students of law, ethics, and policy, presenting the position that the law is neither \"all-bad\" or \"all-good\" but offering points of conflict or contrast along such a continuum. In general, it is found that when the law does not go far enough, the opportunity for a learning encounter or so-called teaching moment is created. A response to which the intermediary may find is consistent with its goals of educating or enhancing the information experience. A characteristic of examples where the law does not go far enough is often the conflict of rights created by the law that may impact other rights such as free speech, self- responsibility, or self- restraint for the benefit of others.The first examples below","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"71-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal FoundationsAdam D. Moore. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010. 248 pp. $65.00.Moore has written extensively on the topic of privacy from its moral and legal underpinnings to its value both inherent and in practice. This body of work is reflected in this offering. The book is not a mere recounting of the threat to privacy in present society. Rather, the author presents a series of arguments in favor of privacy protection ("my goal is to provide a philosophically rigorous defense of privacy rights" p. 4), its moral foundation, and its legal shortcomings as well as possibilities. Thus a normative approach is his goal; i.e., one based upon "moral claims" (p. 16) as opposed to one based on the condition of privacy, tending to be descriptive. Elements from many chapters have appeared in Moore's previous writings and presentations. True to the philosopher in Moore, there are numerous and variable cases or thought-exercises (most involving two actors, Fred and Ginger) and prove to be to some the most useful content presented. Moore knows his law too, a feature missing in many works on this and inter-related topics such as free speech and copyright. Discussion of these legal concepts is both fluid and informed.After a short introductory chapter, the author spends some time attempting to define privacy and its value. The remaining seven chapters develop the argument for privacy rights in bodies (self ) and locations (space), information (about self and space, including decisional privacy), legal privacy rights, conflicts between speech and privacy, workplace privacy, the conflict between intellectual property and privacy rights, and state (security) versus the individual (and his or her privacy).In chapter 2 Moore argues for a normative view in defense of privacy with the benefit that his conception is broad enough to encompass more singular conceptualizations, those based on personality ("grow personally") or autonomy, for example (p. 17). Control rather than liberty is key to Moore's conception, with "access to" and "use of" distinguishable. In addition, the privacy right extends to "use of bodies, locations, and personal information" (p. 25).Chapter 3 (The Value of Privacy), the most philosophically oriented of the book, discusses Rawls, Hume, et al., and while recognizing privacy as culturally variable also argues that privacy is somewhat inherent or universal in all but a few cases. Of course, exceptions are the bane of the philosopher and Moore's argument is no exception. While the chapter presents a number of important considerations, it remains in the reviewer's mind a less convincing articulation of the value of privacy.Chapter 4 and those that follow proceed quickly into specifics. Here Moore argues for privacy rights in bodies and more important, locations. This is one clear example where Moore and much legal thinking part company. He introduces a basic rule for evaluating privacy claims: A
{"title":"Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations","authors":"T. Lipinski","doi":"10.5860/choice.48-4145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-4145","url":null,"abstract":"Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal FoundationsAdam D. Moore. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010. 248 pp. $65.00.Moore has written extensively on the topic of privacy from its moral and legal underpinnings to its value both inherent and in practice. This body of work is reflected in this offering. The book is not a mere recounting of the threat to privacy in present society. Rather, the author presents a series of arguments in favor of privacy protection (\"my goal is to provide a philosophically rigorous defense of privacy rights\" p. 4), its moral foundation, and its legal shortcomings as well as possibilities. Thus a normative approach is his goal; i.e., one based upon \"moral claims\" (p. 16) as opposed to one based on the condition of privacy, tending to be descriptive. Elements from many chapters have appeared in Moore's previous writings and presentations. True to the philosopher in Moore, there are numerous and variable cases or thought-exercises (most involving two actors, Fred and Ginger) and prove to be to some the most useful content presented. Moore knows his law too, a feature missing in many works on this and inter-related topics such as free speech and copyright. Discussion of these legal concepts is both fluid and informed.After a short introductory chapter, the author spends some time attempting to define privacy and its value. The remaining seven chapters develop the argument for privacy rights in bodies (self ) and locations (space), information (about self and space, including decisional privacy), legal privacy rights, conflicts between speech and privacy, workplace privacy, the conflict between intellectual property and privacy rights, and state (security) versus the individual (and his or her privacy).In chapter 2 Moore argues for a normative view in defense of privacy with the benefit that his conception is broad enough to encompass more singular conceptualizations, those based on personality (\"grow personally\") or autonomy, for example (p. 17). Control rather than liberty is key to Moore's conception, with \"access to\" and \"use of\" distinguishable. In addition, the privacy right extends to \"use of bodies, locations, and personal information\" (p. 25).Chapter 3 (The Value of Privacy), the most philosophically oriented of the book, discusses Rawls, Hume, et al., and while recognizing privacy as culturally variable also argues that privacy is somewhat inherent or universal in all but a few cases. Of course, exceptions are the bane of the philosopher and Moore's argument is no exception. While the chapter presents a number of important considerations, it remains in the reviewer's mind a less convincing articulation of the value of privacy.Chapter 4 and those that follow proceed quickly into specifics. Here Moore argues for privacy rights in bodies and more important, locations. This is one clear example where Moore and much legal thinking part company. He introduces a basic rule for evaluating privacy claims: A ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"9 1","pages":"83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71132786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What are the ethical considerations of providing anonymous access to the Internet in an age when child pornographers are using this technology to share illegal materials? The perennial dilemma of an open society is striking a balance between liberty and safety. Too much liberty, and people are free to commit horrible acts. Too much safety, and people are constrained in what they can think, say, and do. The balance tilts toward safety in times of war, or when fears (real or perceived) take hold in the popular imagination. When threats to children are involved, safety almost always wins out over liberty, as the concept of protecting even one child from harm, regardless of the cost, is a powerful rhetorical tool. As a 2007 case in Colorado will demonstrate, this balance poses a challenge for libraries offering public access to the Internet, especially if that access may facilitate criminal activity.While librarians often talk about protecting user privacy, it is user ano - nymity and confidentiality that are ultimately at stake. Distinctions among the three terms are necessary before continuing. A private act is not known to anyone except the person committing the act. Others can know about an anonymous act, but the actor's identity is unknown. Confidential acts are known by those, and only those, who need to know the actor's identity. A truly private act in a library is to take a book offthe shelf, read it in the library, and replace it without being observed by anyone. Even if an item is checked out using a self- check system and is never handled by a library employee, the library creates and keeps a confidential record for as long as the item is in use. Anonymous uses of the library include reading materials in view of others, whether staffor other users, and using computers that do not require a personally identifiable login.Colorado and ConfidentialityLibrary users in Colorado have good reason to expect protection of their confidentiality. As noted in its own annotations, the Colorado Constitution provides stronger privacy protections than the Constitution of the United States: "The Colorado proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures protects a greater range of privacy interests than does its federal counterpart" (Colo. Const. art. II, § 7). Additionally, an expectation of confidentiality in libraries is explicitly spelled out in the Colorado Revised Statutes: "[A] publiclysupported library shall not disclose any record or other information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials or service or as otherwise having used the library" (emphasis added) (Privacy of User Records, 2010; see Appendix A for the complete statute). The law provides the usual exceptions for responding to court orders and for "reasonable" administration of the library, but it is important to note the sweeping scope of what is protected. This legislation was adopted following John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Presi
{"title":"For the Sake of One Child: Privacy, Anonymity, and Confidentiality in Libraries","authors":"Martin L. Garnar","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.1.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.1.12","url":null,"abstract":"What are the ethical considerations of providing anonymous access to the Internet in an age when child pornographers are using this technology to share illegal materials? The perennial dilemma of an open society is striking a balance between liberty and safety. Too much liberty, and people are free to commit horrible acts. Too much safety, and people are constrained in what they can think, say, and do. The balance tilts toward safety in times of war, or when fears (real or perceived) take hold in the popular imagination. When threats to children are involved, safety almost always wins out over liberty, as the concept of protecting even one child from harm, regardless of the cost, is a powerful rhetorical tool. As a 2007 case in Colorado will demonstrate, this balance poses a challenge for libraries offering public access to the Internet, especially if that access may facilitate criminal activity.While librarians often talk about protecting user privacy, it is user ano - nymity and confidentiality that are ultimately at stake. Distinctions among the three terms are necessary before continuing. A private act is not known to anyone except the person committing the act. Others can know about an anonymous act, but the actor's identity is unknown. Confidential acts are known by those, and only those, who need to know the actor's identity. A truly private act in a library is to take a book offthe shelf, read it in the library, and replace it without being observed by anyone. Even if an item is checked out using a self- check system and is never handled by a library employee, the library creates and keeps a confidential record for as long as the item is in use. Anonymous uses of the library include reading materials in view of others, whether staffor other users, and using computers that do not require a personally identifiable login.Colorado and ConfidentialityLibrary users in Colorado have good reason to expect protection of their confidentiality. As noted in its own annotations, the Colorado Constitution provides stronger privacy protections than the Constitution of the United States: \"The Colorado proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures protects a greater range of privacy interests than does its federal counterpart\" (Colo. Const. art. II, § 7). Additionally, an expectation of confidentiality in libraries is explicitly spelled out in the Colorado Revised Statutes: \"[A] publiclysupported library shall not disclose any record or other information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials or service or as otherwise having used the library\" (emphasis added) (Privacy of User Records, 2010; see Appendix A for the complete statute). The law provides the usual exceptions for responding to court orders and for \"reasonable\" administration of the library, but it is important to note the sweeping scope of what is protected. This legislation was adopted following John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Presi","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"12-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Authorial Vanities II","authors":"J. S. Fulda","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.1.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.1.7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"7-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionOrganizations tend to view governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC) as an overhead but a poor economy increases the likelihood of fraud, bribery, and corruption for individuals beyond the pressure of reaching often unrealistic organizational targets. Governance is the process by which policies are set and decision-making is executed; risk management ensures that important business processes and behaviors remain within the tolerances associated with those policies and decisions, going beyond that which creates an unacceptable potential for loss; and compliance is the process of adherence to policies and decisions. The massive public failures in GRC around the globe in recent years as evidenced by Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers mean that organizations and employees are under increasing pressure to conduct their business operations not only effectively and profitably but also ethically-and be able to prove it to regulators, in the courts, to the press, and to the public. The risks associated with inappropriate ethical behavior have grown in number, likelihood, and severity. Ensuring ethical behavior among employees can gain organizations the goodwill and trust of their stakeholders and clients, avoid unfavorable publicity, and protect them and their employees from legal action. Although the importance of ethics in IT has been recognized for several decades in the IT field, to date very little consideration has been given to the need for an ethics specialized role dedicated to the IT function. At the same time, the broader culture within a country influences its business culture that in turn influences organizational cultures as well as its legislation, which impacts how ethical behavior in organizations is viewed and promoted.In this paper we argue for such a specialized role in IT in the form of an ethics officer using the U.S. as point of departure. To this end this paper is structured as follows: first, we provide a brief overview of the drivers for initiatives to promote ethics in organizations. Second, we examine the reasons why ethics in the IT function in particular is of especial importance to establish and maintain an ethical culture in organizations. The paper concludes with our argument that an Ethics Officer in the IT function is needed to contribute to an ethical culture in an organization.Promoting an Ethical Culture in OrganizationsSo why is ethics so important to organizations today? In the United States, Chapter 8 Part B of the 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines entitled Remedying Harm From Criminal Conduct, and Effective Compliance and Ethics Programs (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2005) necessitates an effective compliance and ethics program which should be "designed to prevent and detect criminal conduct." It notes that this particular section is in response to section 805(a)(2)(5) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S. House of Representatives, 2002) in which the U.S. Sentencing
{"title":"The Elephant in the Server Room: Confronting the Need for an Ethics Officer in the IT Function","authors":"S. Ponelis, J. Britz","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.1.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.1.27","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionOrganizations tend to view governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC) as an overhead but a poor economy increases the likelihood of fraud, bribery, and corruption for individuals beyond the pressure of reaching often unrealistic organizational targets. Governance is the process by which policies are set and decision-making is executed; risk management ensures that important business processes and behaviors remain within the tolerances associated with those policies and decisions, going beyond that which creates an unacceptable potential for loss; and compliance is the process of adherence to policies and decisions. The massive public failures in GRC around the globe in recent years as evidenced by Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers mean that organizations and employees are under increasing pressure to conduct their business operations not only effectively and profitably but also ethically-and be able to prove it to regulators, in the courts, to the press, and to the public. The risks associated with inappropriate ethical behavior have grown in number, likelihood, and severity. Ensuring ethical behavior among employees can gain organizations the goodwill and trust of their stakeholders and clients, avoid unfavorable publicity, and protect them and their employees from legal action. Although the importance of ethics in IT has been recognized for several decades in the IT field, to date very little consideration has been given to the need for an ethics specialized role dedicated to the IT function. At the same time, the broader culture within a country influences its business culture that in turn influences organizational cultures as well as its legislation, which impacts how ethical behavior in organizations is viewed and promoted.In this paper we argue for such a specialized role in IT in the form of an ethics officer using the U.S. as point of departure. To this end this paper is structured as follows: first, we provide a brief overview of the drivers for initiatives to promote ethics in organizations. Second, we examine the reasons why ethics in the IT function in particular is of especial importance to establish and maintain an ethical culture in organizations. The paper concludes with our argument that an Ethics Officer in the IT function is needed to contribute to an ethical culture in an organization.Promoting an Ethical Culture in OrganizationsSo why is ethics so important to organizations today? In the United States, Chapter 8 Part B of the 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines entitled Remedying Harm From Criminal Conduct, and Effective Compliance and Ethics Programs (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2005) necessitates an effective compliance and ethics program which should be \"designed to prevent and detect criminal conduct.\" It notes that this particular section is in response to section 805(a)(2)(5) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S. House of Representatives, 2002) in which the U.S. Sentencing","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"27-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. IntroductionDigital Forensics ("DF") is a relatively new area of Computer Science. Like forensic areas in other scientific fields, Digital Forensics seeks to discover evidence and reconstruct events based on an intimate knowledge of how computers, networks, and other electronic devices and communication systems function. As new as it is, DF is playing an increasingly important role not only in the expected area of criminal law, but now in civil law as well. With the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006, terms like Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") and Electronic Document/Data Discovery ("EDD") are entering the vocabulary of civil law firms with celerity.Despite its increasing importance, the DF field is still very young. At one extreme there are highly skilled researchers with strong backgrounds in computer science and mathematics pondering the esoteric inner workings of technology in order to develop new forensic tools and techniques; at the other end there is a frenzied market filled with service providers, software vendors, and other specialists offering any and every service that can even remotely be branded Digital Forensics by some contortion of logic. The EDD market itself was estimated to be 2.7 billion dollars in 2007 and projected to increase to 4.6 billion dollars by 2010 making it a quickly growing massive industry currently existing with minimal oversight (Socha 2008). While the field is moving full speed ahead it has not stopped to formally or substantively ponder the ethics which should underlie research and practice. Some certification bodies have sprung up and produced their own codes of ethics, but, aside from publishing an arbitrary list of rules primarily intended to govern certified members, no substantial discourse has been published to justify them. No substantial discourse has been published on the ethical usage of data in digital forensic research or on digital forensics in general. Our work, therefore, is novel in its application.In this paper we examine the ethical issues involved with procuring data storage media, primarily hard drives, from 3rd party sources such as eBay for use in Digital Forensic research. In Section 2, we give a background on research areas that benefit from real world data sources, outline related research making use of such sources, and briefly examine its contributions. In Section 3, we establish scenarios to frame the ethical analysis. In Section 4, we discuss the ethical issues and draw parallels to other fields with relevant similarities. In Section 5, we establish tests for determining ethical behavior. Finally, in Section 6, we conclude.2. Background and Related WorkFile Carving ("FC") is a DF technique for recovering data from media where the file system information is damaged or deleted. The technique relies upon the nature of the file it attempts to recover. Many file types contain sections which are static for all files of the given type; these invariant se
{"title":"Ethical Issues Raised by Data Acquisition Methods in Digital Forensics Research","authors":"Brian Roux, Michael Falgoust","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.1.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.1.40","url":null,"abstract":"1. IntroductionDigital Forensics (\"DF\") is a relatively new area of Computer Science. Like forensic areas in other scientific fields, Digital Forensics seeks to discover evidence and reconstruct events based on an intimate knowledge of how computers, networks, and other electronic devices and communication systems function. As new as it is, DF is playing an increasingly important role not only in the expected area of criminal law, but now in civil law as well. With the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006, terms like Electronically Stored Information (\"ESI\") and Electronic Document/Data Discovery (\"EDD\") are entering the vocabulary of civil law firms with celerity.Despite its increasing importance, the DF field is still very young. At one extreme there are highly skilled researchers with strong backgrounds in computer science and mathematics pondering the esoteric inner workings of technology in order to develop new forensic tools and techniques; at the other end there is a frenzied market filled with service providers, software vendors, and other specialists offering any and every service that can even remotely be branded Digital Forensics by some contortion of logic. The EDD market itself was estimated to be 2.7 billion dollars in 2007 and projected to increase to 4.6 billion dollars by 2010 making it a quickly growing massive industry currently existing with minimal oversight (Socha 2008). While the field is moving full speed ahead it has not stopped to formally or substantively ponder the ethics which should underlie research and practice. Some certification bodies have sprung up and produced their own codes of ethics, but, aside from publishing an arbitrary list of rules primarily intended to govern certified members, no substantial discourse has been published to justify them. No substantial discourse has been published on the ethical usage of data in digital forensic research or on digital forensics in general. Our work, therefore, is novel in its application.In this paper we examine the ethical issues involved with procuring data storage media, primarily hard drives, from 3rd party sources such as eBay for use in Digital Forensic research. In Section 2, we give a background on research areas that benefit from real world data sources, outline related research making use of such sources, and briefly examine its contributions. In Section 3, we establish scenarios to frame the ethical analysis. In Section 4, we discuss the ethical issues and draw parallels to other fields with relevant similarities. In Section 5, we establish tests for determining ethical behavior. Finally, in Section 6, we conclude.2. Background and Related WorkFile Carving (\"FC\") is a DF technique for recovering data from media where the file system information is damaged or deleted. The technique relies upon the nature of the file it attempts to recover. Many file types contain sections which are static for all files of the given type; these invariant se","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"40-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that the disclosure, dissemination, sale, and publication of text - such as text messages, e-mail's, and letters - addressed to anyone other than the public at large are gravely and profoundly immoral. The argument has two main strands, the first based on a conception of privacy largely due to Davis (2009) (but also to an earlier paper by Alfino), and the second based on the concept of authorial autonomy and its reverse, authorial dilution. The paper is an intersection between its main concern, ethics, and a secondary concern, the law keeping pace with ethics, specifically the law of copyright and the law of privacy.
{"title":"Written for the Moment","authors":"J. S. Fulda","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.1.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.1.21","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the disclosure, dissemination, sale, and publication of text - such as text messages, e-mail's, and letters - addressed to anyone other than the public at large are gravely and profoundly immoral. The argument has two main strands, the first based on a conception of privacy largely due to Davis (2009) (but also to an earlier paper by Alfino), and the second based on the concept of authorial autonomy and its reverse, authorial dilution. The paper is an intersection between its main concern, ethics, and a secondary concern, the law keeping pace with ethics, specifically the law of copyright and the law of privacy.","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Books on Trial: Red Scare in the Heartland","authors":"C. Badaracco","doi":"10.5860/choice.45-3402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-3402","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71119063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Trouble with Medical Journals Richard Smith. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2007. 292 pp. £19.95Very few laypersons read medical journals, especially the more pointed and esoteric variety, some of which deal with material of interest only to specialists in arcane areas such as neuropharmacology or forensic pathology or bizarre diseases such as kuru. But even if this were not the case and hundreds of millions of people who comprise the general public subscribed to BMG or JAMA, most of these readers would take little interest in the problems that beset these publications. Indeed, with only a handful of commonly articulated dilemmas (conflict of interest, the pharmaceutical industry's undue influence on research and patient choices, and misconduct), most readers are blithely unaware of the broad array of problems that Richard Smith discusses in this extraordinary and enticing study. As a former editor of BMG (originally, the British Medical Journal) and an articulate and incisively honest critic, Smith is the perfect person to offer these many often disturbing insights.The book is divided into seven sections (e.g., ethical accountability of researchers and journals) and 21 chapters (e.g., libel and medical journals). The trouble here is not always of an ethical nature, but even those problems that have to do, say, with leadership or the relationship between patients and journals are both intellectually stimulating and somehow ultimately do lead to an ethical subtext. But much of this study does concentrate on a plethora of ethical problems, most of which are not easily resolved. For example, editors were aware of researchers' conflicted interests decades ago, but only slowly have the major journals (BMG, The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, The Annals of Internal Medicine) begun to stipulate that all financial conflicts must be articulated so that readers can immediately realize that what an author is discussing or advocating (even in the unsullied description of a randomized clinical trial) may be tainted. Since this has been going on for so long, one might have expected that by 2011, when every research article in JAMA, for example, offers a page of personal admissions, that the problem would have been resolved. But ongoing revealed conflicts indicate that authors are either naive, confused, or dishonest. On March 23 and again on March 28-29, 2009, David Armstrong, in The Wall Street Journal, reported that a university professor had failed to indicate, in a JAMA article, that he had received compensation from the company that produced the drug he had studied. The revelation by a third party produced a major brouhaha, because JAMA's editors were incensed by what they felt was a breach in confidentiality (although this appears to be untrue), and reacted badly.Medical journals publish both poor (soft) science, which biologists and chemists disrespect, as well as non-scientific materials in order to maintain interest among the broad array of readers
医学期刊的麻烦理查德·史密斯。伦敦:皇家医学学会出版社，2007。很少有外行阅读医学杂志，尤其是那些比较尖锐和深奥的杂志，其中一些只涉及深奥领域的专家感兴趣的材料，如神经药理学、法医病理学或奇怪的疾病，如库鲁病。但是，即使事实并非如此，数亿人组成的普通公众订阅了BMG或JAMA，这些读者中的大多数也不会对困扰这些出版物的问题感兴趣。事实上，只有少数几个常见的困境(利益冲突，制药行业对研究和患者选择的不当影响，以及不当行为)，大多数读者都不知道理查德·史密斯在这本非凡而诱人的研究中讨论的广泛问题。作为《BMG》(原《英国医学杂志》)的前编辑和一位口齿伶俐、直言不讳的评论家，史密斯是提供这些经常令人不安的见解的最佳人选。这本书分为七个部分(例如，研究人员和期刊的道德责任)和21章(例如，诽谤和医学期刊)。这里的问题并不总是伦理性质的，但即使是那些与领导或患者与期刊之间的关系有关的问题，也都是智力上的刺激，并以某种方式最终导致道德潜台词。但这项研究的大部分确实集中在过多的伦理问题上，其中大多数都不容易解决。例如，编辑们在几十年前就意识到研究人员的利益冲突，但直到慢慢地，主要期刊(BMG、the Lancet、JAMA、NEJM、the Annals of Internal Medicine)才开始规定，所有的财务冲突都必须明确，这样读者才能立即意识到作者所讨论或倡导的内容(即使是在一项随机临床试验的干净描述中)可能受到了污染。由于这种情况已经持续了很长时间，人们可能会期望，到2011年，例如，当《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)上的每篇研究文章都提供一页个人承认时，这个问题就会得到解决。但持续不断的冲突表明，作者要么天真，要么困惑，要么不诚实。2009年3月23日和3月28日至29日，《华尔街日报》的大卫·阿姆斯特朗(David Armstrong)报道，一位大学教授在《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)的一篇文章中没有表明，他从生产他所研究的药物的公司那里获得了报酬。第三方的披露引起了轩然大波，因为《美国医学会杂志》的编辑们被他们认为违反了保密规定(尽管这似乎是不真实的)所激怒，并做出了糟糕的反应。医学期刊既发表生物学家和化学家不尊重的“软”科学，也发表非科学材料，以保持出版商希望吸引的广大读者的兴趣，因为读者越多，利润就越大，现在甚至非商业(组织)出版商也对赚钱感兴趣;利益冲突猖獗;制药公司及其研究赞助及其广告(有时与市场产品的研究相结合)不适当和不公平地影响特定药物的传播和使用;不端行为(伪造、捏造和抄袭)继续困扰着科学论文的发表;同行评议仍然是一个受污染的系统;作者身份的概念是非常混乱的，即使是作者;对于医学杂志的编辑来说，政治操纵和宣传是极具争议的，当涉及到国家医疗保险或其他敏感的社会话题时，他们被迫做出艰难的选择。…
{"title":"The Trouble with Medical Journals","authors":"R. Hauptman","doi":"10.5860/choice.44-3908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-3908","url":null,"abstract":"The Trouble with Medical Journals Richard Smith. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2007. 292 pp. £19.95Very few laypersons read medical journals, especially the more pointed and esoteric variety, some of which deal with material of interest only to specialists in arcane areas such as neuropharmacology or forensic pathology or bizarre diseases such as kuru. But even if this were not the case and hundreds of millions of people who comprise the general public subscribed to BMG or JAMA, most of these readers would take little interest in the problems that beset these publications. Indeed, with only a handful of commonly articulated dilemmas (conflict of interest, the pharmaceutical industry's undue influence on research and patient choices, and misconduct), most readers are blithely unaware of the broad array of problems that Richard Smith discusses in this extraordinary and enticing study. As a former editor of BMG (originally, the British Medical Journal) and an articulate and incisively honest critic, Smith is the perfect person to offer these many often disturbing insights.The book is divided into seven sections (e.g., ethical accountability of researchers and journals) and 21 chapters (e.g., libel and medical journals). The trouble here is not always of an ethical nature, but even those problems that have to do, say, with leadership or the relationship between patients and journals are both intellectually stimulating and somehow ultimately do lead to an ethical subtext. But much of this study does concentrate on a plethora of ethical problems, most of which are not easily resolved. For example, editors were aware of researchers' conflicted interests decades ago, but only slowly have the major journals (BMG, The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, The Annals of Internal Medicine) begun to stipulate that all financial conflicts must be articulated so that readers can immediately realize that what an author is discussing or advocating (even in the unsullied description of a randomized clinical trial) may be tainted. Since this has been going on for so long, one might have expected that by 2011, when every research article in JAMA, for example, offers a page of personal admissions, that the problem would have been resolved. But ongoing revealed conflicts indicate that authors are either naive, confused, or dishonest. On March 23 and again on March 28-29, 2009, David Armstrong, in The Wall Street Journal, reported that a university professor had failed to indicate, in a JAMA article, that he had received compensation from the company that produced the drug he had studied. The revelation by a third party produced a major brouhaha, because JAMA's editors were incensed by what they felt was a breach in confidentiality (although this appears to be untrue), and reacted badly.Medical journals publish both poor (soft) science, which biologists and chemists disrespect, as well as non-scientific materials in order to maintain interest among the broad array of readers ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71114866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：