DEFINING KEY TERMS: CYBERETHICS AND CYBERTECHNOLOGY For our purpose, cyberethics
ID: 2246549 • Letter: D
Question
DEFINING KEY TERMS: CYBERETHICS
AND CYBERTECHNOLOGY
For our purpose, cyberethics can be defined as the study of moral, legal, and social
issues involving cybertechnology. Cyberethics examines the impact of cybertechnology
on our social, legal, and moral systems, and it evaluates the social policies and laws that
have been framed in response to issues generated by its development and use.
Cybertechnology, as used throughout this textbook, refers to a wide range of computing
and communication devices, from stand-alone computers to connected, or networked,
computing and communication technologies. These technologies include, but need not be
limited to, devices such as “smart” phones, iPods, (electronic) “tablets,” personal
computers (desktops and laptops), and large mainframe computers. Networked devices
can be connected directly to the Internet, or they can be connected to other devices
through one or more privately owned computer networks. Privately owned networks, in
turn, include local area networks (LANs) and wide area networks (WANs).
In one sense, the
Internet can be understood as the network of interconnected computer networks. A
synthesis of contemporary information and communications technologies, the Internet
evolved from an earlier United States Defense Department initiative (in the 1960s)
known as the ARPANET. Unlike WANs and LANs, which are privately owned
computer networks, the Internet is generally considered to be a public network, in
the sense that much of the information available on the Internet resides in “public space”
and is thus available to anyone. The Internet, which should be differentiated from the
World Wide Web, includes several applications. The Web, based on hypertext transfer
protocol (HTTP), is one application; other applications include file transfer protocol
(FTP), Telnet, and e-mail. The Internet and privately owned computer networks, such as WANs and LANs, are
perhaps the most common and well-known examples of cybertechnology.
Why the Term Cyberethics?
Many authors have used the term “computer ethics” to describe the field that examines
moral issues pertaining to computing and information technology (see, for example,
Barger 2008; Johnson 2010). Others use the expression “information ethics” (e.g.,
Capurro 2007) to refer to a cluster of ethical concerns regarding the flow of information
that is either enhanced or restricted by computer technology.4 Because of concerns about
ethical issues involving the Internet in particular, some have also used the term “Internet
ethics” (Langford 2000).
For our purposes, “cyberethics” is more accurate than “computer ethics” for two
reasons. First, the term “computer ethics” can connote ethical issues associated with
computing machines, and thus could be construed as pertaining to stand-alone or
“unconnected computers.” Because computing technologies and communication technologies
have converged in recent years, resulting in networked systems, a computer
system may now be thought of more accurately as a new kind of medium than as a
machine. Second, the term “computer ethics” might also suggest a field of study that is
concerned exclusively with ethical issues affecting computer professionals.
“Cyberethics” is also more accurate, for our purposes, than “information ethics.” For
one thing, “information ethics” is ambiguous because it can mean a specific methodological
framework—i.e., Information Ethics (or IE)—for analyzing issues in cyberethics
(Floridi 2007).5 Or it can connote a cluster of ethical issues of particular interest to
professionals in the fields of library science and information science (Buchanan and
Henderson 2009). In the latter sense, “information ethics” refers to ethical concerns
affecting the free flow of, and unfettered access to, information, which include issues such
as library censorship and intellectual freedom.
THE CYBERETHICS EVOLUTION: FOUR DEVELOPMENTAL
PHASES IN CYBERTECHNOLOGY
. For our
purposes, the evolution of cyberethics can be summarized in four distinct technological
phases.
Phase 1 (1950s and 1960s)
In Phase 1, computing technology consisted mainly of huge mainframe computers, such
as ENIAC, that were “unconnected” and thus existed as stand-alone machines.
Another set of ethical and social concerns that arose during Phase 1 could be
catalogued under the heading of privacy threats and the fear of Big Brother. For
example, some people in the United States feared that the federal government would
set up a national database in which extensive amounts of personal information about its
citizens would be stored as electronic records. A strong centralized government could
then use that information to monitor and control the actions of ordinary citizens.
Although networked computers had not yet come on to the scene, work on the
ARPANET—the Internet’s predecessor, which was funded by an agency in the United
States Defense Department—began during this phase, in the 1960s.
Phase 2 (1970s and 1980s)
In Phase 2, computing machines and communication devices in the commercial sector
began to converge. This convergence, in turn, introduced an era of computer/communications
networks. Mainframe computers, minicomputers, microcomputers, and
personal computers could now be linked together by way of one or more privately
owned computer networks such as LANs and WANs , and information
could readily be exchanged between and among databases accessible to
networked computers.
Ethical issues associated with this phase of computing included concerns about
personal privacy, intellectual property, and computer crime. Privacy concerns, which had
emerged during Phase 1 because of worries about the amount of personal information
that could be collected by government agencies and stored in a centralized government owned
database, were exacerbated because electronic records containing personal and
confidential information could now also easily be exchanged between two or more
commercial databases in the private sector. Concerns affecting intellectual property and
proprietary information also emerged during this phase because personal (desktop)
computers could be used to duplicate proprietary software programs. And concerns
associated with computer crime appeared during this phase because individuals could
now use computing devices, including remote computer terminals, to break into and
disrupt the computer systems of large organizations.
Phase 3 (1990–Present)
During Phase 3, the Internet era, availability of Internet access to the general public has
increased significantly. This was facilitated, in no small part, by the development and
phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web in the 1990s. The proliferation of Internet and
Web-based technologies has contributed to some additional ethical concerns
involving computing technology; for example, issues of free speech, anonymity, jurisdiction,
and trust have been hotly disputed during this phase.
Issues of jurisdiction also arose because there are no clear national or geographical
boundaries in cyberspace; if a crime occurs on the Internet, it is not always clear
where—i.e., in which legal jurisdiction—it took place and thus it is unclear where itshould be prosecuted. And as e-commerce emerged during this phase, potential
consumers initially had concerns about trusting online businesses with their financial
and personal information. Other ethical and social concerns that arose during Phase 3
include disputes about the public vs. private aspects of personal information that has
become increasingly available on the Internet. Concerns of this type have been
exacerbated by the amount of personal information included on social networking
sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, and on other kinds of interactive Web-based
forums (made possible by “Web 2.0” technology).
We should note that during Phase 3, both the interfaces used to interact with
computer technology and the devices used to “house” it were still much the same as
in Phases 1 and 2. A computer was still essentially a “box,” i.e., a CPU, with one or more
peripheral devices, such as a video screen, keyboard, and mouse, serving as interfaces to
that box. And computers were still viewed as devices essentially external to humans, as
things or objects “out there.”
Phase 4 (Present–Near Future)
Presently we are on the threshold of Phase 4, a point at which we have begun to
experience an unprecedented level of convergence of technologies. We have already
witnessed aspects of technological convergence beginning in Phase 2, where the integration
of computing and communication devices resulted in privately owned networked
systems, as we noted above. And in Phase 3, the Internet era, we briefly described the
convergence of text, video, and sound technologies on the Web, and we noted how the
computer began to be viewed much more as a new kind of medium than as a conventional
type of machine. The convergence of information technology and biotechnology in
recent years has resulted in the emerging fields of bioinformatics and computational
genomics; this has also caused some analysts to question whether computers of the future
will still be silicon-based or whether some may also possibly be made of biological
materials. Additionally, biochip implant technology, which has been enhanced by
developments in AI research has led some to predict that
in the not-too-distant future it may become difficult for us to separate certain aspects of
our biology from our technology.
Today, computers are also becoming ubiquitous or pervasive; i.e., they are “everywhere”
and they permeate both our workplace and our recreational environments.
. Some consider radio frequency
identification (RFID) technology to be the first step in
what is now referred to as pervasive or ubiquitous computing.
ARE CYBERETHICS ISSUES UNIQUE ETHICAL ISSUES?
According to this line of reasoning, whether someone
happens to use cybertechnology to assist in carrying out a particular bullying incident is
irrelevant. One might further argue that there is nothing special about cyberbullying
incidents in general, regardless of whether or not they also result in a victim’s death.
Proponents of this position could point to the fact that bullying activities are hardly new,
since these kinds of activities have been carried out in the off-line world for quite some
time. So, cybertechnology might be seen simply as the latest in a series of tools or
techniques that are now available to aid bullies in carrying out their activities.
Alternatively, some argue that forms of behavior made possible by cybertechnology
have indeed raised either new or special ethical problems. Using the example of
cyberbullying to support this view, one might point out the relative ease with which
bullying activities can now be carried out. Simply by using a computing device with
Internet access, one can bully others without having to leave the comfort of his or her
home.
The fact that a user can bully a victim with relative anonymity
makes it much more difficult for law enforcement agents to track down a bully, either
before or after that bully has caused harm to the victim(s).
Also consider issues having to do with scope and scale: an Internet user can bully
multiple victims simultaneously via the use of multiple “windows” on his or her computer
screen or electronic device. The bully can also harass victims who happen to live in states
and nations that are geographically distant from the bully.
More individuals can now engage in bullying behavior because cybertechnology
has made it easy, and, as a result, significantly more people can now become the
victims of bullies.
Walter Maner (2004) argues that computer use has generated
a series of ethical issues that (a) did not exist before the advent of computing, and (b)
could not have existed if computer technology had not been invented.10 Is there any
evidence to support Maner’s claim?
. In one sense, it is true that ethical concerns
having to do with whether or not one should participate in developing a certain kind of
computer system did not exist before the advent of computing technology. However, it is
true only in a trivial sense. Consider that long before computing technologies were
available, engineers were confronted with ethical choices involving whether or not to
participate in the design and development of certain kinds of controversial technological
systems. Prior to the computer era, for example, they had to make decisions involving the
design of aircraft intended to deliver conventional as well as nuclear bombs.
Because the practice of downloading digital media from the Internet—a practice that
many in the movie and recording industries call “digital piracy”—would not have been
possible if computer technology had not been invented in the first place? If so, this claim
would, once again, seem to be true only in a trivial sense. The issue of piracy itself as a
moral concern existed before the widespread use of computer technology.
The important point to
note here is that moral issues surrounding the pirating of audio cassette tapes are, at
bottom, the same issues underlying the pirating of digital media. They arise in each case
because, fundamentally, the behavior associated with unauthorized copying raises moral
concerns about property, fairness, rights, and so forth.
1.3.1 Distinguishing between Unique Technological Features and Unique Ethical Issues
Based on our analysis of the two scenarios in the preceding section, we might conclude
that there is nothing new or special about the kinds of moral issues associated with
would, once again, seem to be true only in a trivial sense. The issue of piracy itself as a
moral concern existed before the widespread use of computer technology.
The important point to
note here is that moral issues surrounding the pirating of audio cassette tapes are, at
bottom, the same issues underlying the pirating of digital media. They arise in each case
because, fundamentally, the behavior associated with unauthorized copying raises moral
concerns about property, fairness, rights, and so forth.
. Cyber-related concerns involving privacy, property,
free speech, etc., can be understood as specific expressions of core (traditional) moral
notions, such as autonomy, fairness, justice, responsibility, and respect for persons.
However, if instead we focus more closely on cybertechnology itself, we see that there are
some interesting and possibly unique features that distinguish this technology from
earlier technologies
.” But even if cybertechnology has these
unique features, does it necessarily follow that any of the moral questions associated
with that technology must also be unique? One would commit a logical fallacy if he or she
concluded that cyberethics issues must be unique simply because certain features or
aspects of cybertechnology are unique. The fallacy can be expressed in the following way:
PREMISE 1. Cybertechnology has some unique technological features.
PREMISE 2. Cybertechnology has generated some ethical concerns.
CONCLUSION. At least some ethical concerns generated by cybertechnology must
be unique ethical concerns.
1.3.2 An Alternative Strategy for Analyzing the Debate about the Uniqueness
of Cyberethics Issues
Although it may be difficult to prove conclusively whether or not cybertechnology has
generated any new or unique ethical issues, we must not rule out the possibility that many
of the controversies associated with this technology warrant special consideration from
an ethical perspective.
However, a computer, depending on the software used, can perform a range
of diverse tasks: it can be instructed to behave as a video game, a word processor, a
spreadsheet, a medium to send and receive e-mail messages, or an interface to Web sites.
Hence, cybertechnology is extremely malleable.
Moor (2004) defines policies as “rules of conduct,
ranging from formal laws to informal, implicit guidelines for actions.” Viewing computer
ethics issues in terms of policies is useful, Moor believes, because policies have the
right level of generality to consider when we evaluate the morality of conduct. As noted,
policies can range from formal laws to informal guidelines. Moor also notes that policies
can have “justified exemptions” because they are not absolute; yet policies usually imply
a certain “level of obligation” within their contexts.Initially, a
solution to this problem might seem quite simple and straightforward. We might assume
that all we need to do is identify the vacuums that have been generated and then fill them
with policies and laws. However, this will not always work, because sometimes the new
possibilities for human action generated by cybertechnology also introduce “conceptual
vacuums,” or what Moor calls “conceptual muddles.” In these cases, we must first
eliminate the muddles by clearing up certain conceptual confusions before we can frame
coherent policies and laws.
1.3.3 AA Policy Vacuum in Duplicating Computer Software
A critical policy vacuum, which also involved a conceptual muddle, emerged with the
advent of personal desktop computers (henceforth referred to generically as PCs). The
particular vacuum arose because of the controversy surrounding the copying of
software. When PCs became commercially available, many users discovered that
they could easily duplicate software programs. They found that they could use their
PCs to make copies of proprietary computer programs such as word processing
programs, spreadsheets, and video games. Some users assumed that in making copies
of these programs they were doing nothing wrong. At that time there were no explicit
laws to regulate the subsequent use and distribution of software programs once they
had been legally purchased by an individual or by an institution. Although it might be
difficult to imagine today, at one time software was not clearly protected by either
copyright law or the patent process.
Of course, there were clear laws and policies regarding the theft of physical property.
Such laws and policies protected against the theft of personal computers as well as against
the theft of a physical disk drive residing in a PC on which the proprietary software
programs could easily be duplicated. However, this was not the case with laws and
policies regarding the “theft,” or unauthorized copying, of software programs that run on
computers. Although there were intellectual property laws in place, it had not been
determined that software was or should be protected by intellectual property (IP) law: It
was unclear whether software should be understood as an idea (which is not protected by
IP law), as a form of writing protected by copyright law, or as a set of machine instructions
protected by patents.
A policy
vacuum arose with respect to duplicating software
Before we can fill the vacuum regarding software duplication with a coherent policy
or law, we first have to resolve a certain conceptual muddle by answering the question:
what, exactly, is computer software? Until we can clarify the concept of software itself, we
cannot frame a coherent policy as to whether or not we should allow the free duplication
of software. Currently there is still much confusion, as well as considerable controversy,
as to how laws concerning the exchange (and, in effect, duplication) of proprietary
software over the Internet should be framed.
In Moor’s scheme, how one resolves the conceptual muddle (or decides the
conceptual issue) can have a significant effect on which kinds of policies are acceptable.
Getting clear about the conceptual issues is an important first step, but it is not a sufficient
condition for being able to formulate a policy. Finally, the justification of a policy requires
much factual knowledge, as well as an understanding of normative and ethical principles.
. Although cybertechnology has
made it possible to exchange MP3 files, there is still debate, and arguably a great deal of
confusion as well, about whether doing so should necessarily be illegal .
First, we should note that
Moor takes no explicit stance on the question as to whether any cyberethics issues are
unique. However, he does argue that cyberethics issues deserve special consideration
because of the nature of cybertechnology itself, which is significantly different from
alternative technologies in terms of the vast number of policy vacuums it generates (Moor
2001). So, even though the ethical issues associated with cybertechnology—that is, issues
involving privacy, intellectual property, and so forth—might not be new or unique, they
nonetheless can put significant pressure on our conceptual frameworks and normative
reasoning to a degree not found in other areas of applied ethics.
c 1.4 CYBERETHICS AS A BRANCH OF APPLIED ETHICS: THREE
DISTINCT PERSPECTIVES
Cyberethics, as a field of study, can be understood as a branch of applied ethics. Applied
ethics, as opposed to theoretical ethics, examines practical ethical issues. It does so by
analyzing those issues from the vantage point of one or more ethical theories. Whereas ethical theory is concerned with establishing logically coherent and consistent criteria in
the form of standards and rules for evaluating moral problems, the principal aim of
applied ethics is to analyze specific moral problems themselves through the application of
ethical theory. As such, those working in fields of applied ethics, or practical ethics, are
not inclined to debate some of the finer points of individual ethical theories. Instead, their
interest in ethical theory is primarily with how one or more theories can be successfully
applied to the analysis of specific moral problems that they happen to be investigating.
According to this
view, an important consideration for an ethical policy is that it protects the rights of
individuals—in this case, the rights of those who legally own the proprietary material in
question—irrespective of the happiness that might or might not result for the majority of
Internet users.
.
Understanding cyberethics as a field of applied ethics that examines moral issues
pertaining to cybertechnology is an important first step. But much more needs to be said
about the perspectives that interdisciplinary researchers bring to their analysis of the issues
that make up this relatively new field. Most scholars and professionals conducting research
in this field of applied ethics have proceeded from one of three different perspectives—
professional ethics, philosophical ethics, or sociological/descriptive ethics.13 Gaining a
clearer understanding of what is meant by each perspective is useful at this point.
Perspective #1: Cyberethics as a Field of Professional Ethics
According to those who view cyberethics primarily as a branch of professional ethics, the
field can best be understood as identifying and analyzing issues of ethical responsibility
for computer and information-technology (IT) professionals. Among the cyberethics
issues considered from this perspective are those having to do with the computer/IT
professional’s role in designing, developing, and maintaining computer hardware and
software systems.
Those who see cyberethics essentially as a branch of professional ethics would likely
draw on analogies from other professional fields, such as medicine and law. They would
point out that in medical ethics and legal ethics, the principal focus of analysis is on
issues of moral responsibility that affect individuals as members of these professions. By
analogy, they would go on to argue that the same rationale should apply to the field of
cyberethics—i.e., the primary, and possibly even exclusive, focus of cyberethics should be
on issues of moral responsibility that affect computer/IT professionals.
So, in this passage, Gotterbarn suggests that the principal focus of computer ethics
should be on issues of professional responsibility and not on the broader moral and social
implications of that technology
Professional Ethics and the Computer Science Practitioner
Gotterbarn’s view about what the proper focus of computer ethics research and inquiry
should be is shared by other practitioners in the discipline of computer science. However,
some of those practitioners, as well as many philosophers and social scientists, believe
that Gotterbarn’s conception of computer ethics as simply a field of professional ethics is
too narrow. In fact, some who identify themselves as computer professionals or as
“information professionals,” and who are otherwise sympathetic to Gotterbarn’s overall
attention to professional ethics issues, believe that a broader model is needed.
Of course, Buchanan’s category of “informational professional” is considerably
broader in scope than Gotterbarn’s notion of computer professional. But the centralpoint of her argument still holds, especially in the era of the Internet and the World Wide
Web. In the computing era preceding the Web, Gotterbarn’s conception of computer
ethics as a field limited to the study of ethical issues affecting computer professionals
seemed plausible. Now, computers are virtually everywhere, and the ethical issues
generated by certain uses of computers and cybertechnology affect virtually everyone,
professional and nonprofessional alike.
Despite the critiques leveled against Gotterbarn’s conception of the field, his position
may turn out to be the most plausible of the three models we consider. Because of the
social impact that computer and Internet technologies have had during the past three
decades, we have tended to identify many of the ethical issues associated with these
technologies, especially concerns affecting privacy and intellectual property, as computer
ethics issues.
Applying the Professional Ethics Model to Specific Scenarios
It is fairly easy to see how the professional ethics model can be used to analyze issues
involving professional responsibility that directly impact computer/IT professionals. For
example, issues concerned with the development and implementation of critical software
would fit closely with the professional model. But can that model be extended to include
cases that may only affect computer professionals indirectly?
Methodology and Philosophical Ethics
Philip Brey (2004) notes that the standard methodology used by philosophers to conduct
research in applied ethics has three distinct stages in that an ethicist must
1. identify a particular controversial practice as a moral problem,
2. describe and analyze the problem by clarifying concepts and examining the
factual data associated with that problem,
3. apply moral theories and principles in the deliberative process in order to reach a
position about the particular moral issue.16
.We saw that,
first, a practice involving the use of cybertechnology to “pirate” or make unauthorized
copies of proprietary information was identified as morally controversial. At the second
stage, the problem was analyzed in descriptive and contextual terms to clarify the practice
and to situate it in a particular context. In the case of digital piracy, we saw that the
concept of piracy could be analyzed in terms of moral issues involving theft and
intellectual property theory. When we describe and analyze problems at this stage,
we will want to be aware of and address any policy vacuums and conceptual muddles that
are relevant.
At the third and final stage, the problem must be deliberated over in terms of moral
principles (or theories) and logical arguments. Brey describes this stage in the method as
the “deliberative process.” Here, various arguments are used to justify the application of
particular moral principles to the issue under consideration.
Applying the Method of Philosophical Ethics to Specific Scenarios
.
In applying the philosophical ethics model to these scenarios, our first task is to identify
one or more moral issues associated with each. We have already seen that these
scenarios illustrate a wide range of ethical issues.
would appear that the Meier scenario illustrates how a clear and
significant policy vacuum arose in the case of the rules governing acceptable behavior
on SNSs. Fortunately, many SNSs now, following the tragic incident involving Meier,
have clear and explicit policies that require one to disclose his or her true identity to the
SNS before setting up an account on its forum.
Perspective #3: Cyberethics as a Field Socialogical /Descriptive Ethics
The two perspectives on cyberethics that we have examined thus far—professional ethics
and philosophical ethics—can both be understood as normative inquiries into applied
ethics issues. Normative inquiries or studies, which focus on evaluating and prescribing
moral systems, can be contrasted with descriptive inquiries or studies. Descriptive ethics
is, or aims to be, nonevaluative in approach; typically, it describes particular moral
systems and sometimes also reports how members of various groups and cultures view
particular moral issues. This kind of analysis of ethical and social issues is often used by
sociologists and social scientists; hence, our use of the expression “sociological/descriptive
perspective” to analyze this methodological framework.
Descriptive vs. Normative Inquiries
Whereas descriptive investigations provide us with information about what is the case,
normative inquiries evaluate situations from the vantage point of questions having to do
with what ought to be the case. Those who approach cyberethics from the perspective of
descriptive ethics often describe sociological aspects of a particular moral issue, such as
the social impact of a specific technology on a particular community or social group. For
example, one way of analyzing moral issues surrounding the “digital divide” describe the problem in terms of its impact on various sociodemographic
groups involving social class, race, and gender. We can investigate whether,
in fact, fewer poor people, non-whites, and women have access to cybertechnology than
wealthy and middle-class persons, whites, and men. In this case, the investigation is one
that is basically descriptive in character. If we were then to inquire whether the lack of
access to technology for some groups relative to others was unfair, we would be engaging
in a normative inquiry. For example, a normative investigation of this issue would
question whether certain groups should have more access to cybertechnology than they
currently have.
Social and behavioral scientists might further inquire into why some individuals
seem to display little-to-no concern about posting intimate details of their romantic
and sexual encounters to online forums that could be read, potentially at least, by millions
of people. They might also question why some bloggers (as well as ordinary users of SNSs
such as Facebook and Twitter) are so eager to post personal information, including
information about their location (at a given point in time) and about their recreational
interests, to online forums, in an era when that kind of information is so easily tracked and
recorded by individuals other than those for whom it is intended.
Also, a researcher approaching the Meier scenario from the sociological/descriptive
ethics perspective might set out to determine whether an individual who never would
have thought of physically bullying a victim in geographical space might now be inclined
to engage in cyberbullying—perhaps because of the relative ease of doing so with
cybertechnology? Or is it the case that some of those same individuals might now be
tempted to do so because they believe that they will not likely get caught? Also, has the
fact that a potential cyberbully realizes that he or she can harass a victim on the Internet
under the cloak of relative anonymity/pseudonymity contributed to the increase in
bullying-related activities online? These are a few of the kinds of questions that could
be examined from the sociological/descriptive perspective of cyberethics.
Impact of cybertechnology on
governmental/financial/educational
institutions and sociodemographic groupsA “Disclosive” Method for Cyberethics
As noted earlier, Brey believes that the standard, or what he calls “mainstream,” applied
ethics methodology is not always adequate for identifying moral issues involving
cybertechnology. Brey worries that using the standard model we might fail to notice
certain features embedded in the design of cybertechnology. He also worries about the
standard method of applied ethics because it tends to focus on known moral controversies,
and because it fails to identify certain practices involving the use of cybertechnology
that have moral import but that are not yet known. Brey refers to such practices as
having “morally opaque” (or morally nontransparent) features, which he contrasts with
“morally transparent” features.
According to Brey, morally controversial features that are transparent tend to be
easily recognized as morally problematic
. Brey notes that it is, however, generally much
more difficult to discern morally opaque features in technology. These features can be
morally opaque for one of two reasons: either they are unknown, or they are known but
perceived to be morally neutral.
Computerized practices involving data mining would be
unknown to those who have never heard of the concept of data mining and who are
unfamiliar with data mining technology. However, this technology should not be assumed
to be morally neutral merely because data mining techniques are unknown to nontechnical
people, including some ethicists as well. Even if such techniques are opaque to
many users, data mining practices raise certain moral issues pertaining to personal
privacy.
. Most Internet users are familiar with search engine technology. What users might
fail to recognize, however, is that certain uses of search engines can be morally
controversial with respect to personal privacy. Consequently, one of the features of
search engine technology can be morally controversial in a sense that it is not obvious or
transparent to many people, including those who are very familiar with and who use
search engine technology. So, while a well-known technology, such as search engine
programs, might appear to be morally neutral, a closer analysis of practices involving this
technology will disclose that it has moral implications.
.
An Interdisciplinary and Multilevel Method for Analyzing Cyberethics Issues
Brey’s disclosive model is interdisciplinary because it requires that computer scientists,
philosophers, and social scientists collaborate. It is also multilevel because conducting
computer ethics research requires three levels of analysis:
_ disclosure level
_ theoretical level
_ application level
First of all, the moral values embedded in the design of computer systems must be
disclosed. To do this, we need computer scientists because they understand computer
technology much better than philosophers and social scientists do. However, social
scientists are also needed to evaluate systemdesign and make it more user-friendly. Then
philosophers can determine whether existing ethical theories are adequate to test the
newly disclosed moral issues or whether more theory is needed.
In the deliberations involved in applying ethical theory to a particular moral problem,
one remaining methodological step also needs to be resolved. Jeroen van den Hoven
(2000) has noted that methodological schemes must also address the “problem of
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR APPROACHING
CYBERETHICS ISSUES
The following methodological scheme, which expands on the original three-step scheme
, is intended as a strategy to assist you in identifying and
analyzing the specific cyberethics issues
Step 1. Identify a practice involving cybertechnology, or a feature of that technology,
that is controversial from a moral perspective.
1a. Disclose any hidden or opaque features.
1b. Assess any descriptive components of the ethical issue via the sociological
implications it has for relevant social institutions and sociodemographic
groups.
1c. In analyzing the normative elements of that issue, determine whether there
are any specific guidelines, i.e., social policies or ethical codes, that can help
resolve the issue (for example, see the relevant professional codes of
conduct described in Chapter 4 and Appendixes A–E).
1d. If the normative ethical issue cannot be resolved through the application of
existing policies, codes of conduct, etc., go to Step 2.
Step 2. Analyze the ethical issue by clarifying concepts and situating it in a context.
2a. If a policy vacuums exists, go to Step 2b; otherwise, go to Step 3.
2b. Clear up any conceptual muddles involving the policy vacuum and go to
Step 3.
.Please write synposis for this in our own language
Explanation / Answer
BASICS:-
DEFINING CYBERETHICS:- Cyberethics refers to the moral and social issues that have been emerged due to the cybertechnology. Cybertechnology has played a key role in the new generation leading to emegence of cybertechnology.
HISTORY OF CYBERTECHNOLOGY:- The internet has evolved from the United State of Defense in the early 1960s as a network for their own purpose.This was then known a ARPANET.
STEP1)
ANSWER:- Most of the users are unaware of the various search engines and their safety. Some of these search engines may actually be MORALY UNETHICAL as they may store users personal information without their knowledge .
1a)
ANSWER:- Various Cybertechnology harware elements have hidden tecnology embedded in it. Also we need to be aware that it may be morally ethical for a person but it is surely morally opaque or hidden.
1b)
ANSWER:- Ethical issues raised by the cyberethics has various implications on sociodemographic groups aswell.
Also , Various people have been killed because of blackmailing , which is a imporntant ethical issue in Social institutions like colleges. Also it has impacted socio-demographic groups like the people having propriety ,who have found it difficult to deal with issues of plagiarism..
1c)
ANSWER:- There are certain methodological steps to resolve the following problem:-
1. identify a particular controversial practice as a moral problem.
2. describe and analyze the problem by clarifying concepts and examining the factual data associated with that problem.
3. Apply moral theories and principles in the deliberative process in order to reach a position about the particular moral issue.
STEP2)
ANSWER:- ANALYSING ETHICAL ISSUES:-
1) PROFFESIONAL ETHICS
In field of ethics
According to those who view cyberethics primarily as a branch of professional ethics, the field can best be understood as identifying and analyzing issues of ethical responsibility for computer and information-technology (IT) professionals. Among the cyberethics issues considered from this perspective are those having to do with the computer/IT professional’s role in designing, developing, and maintaining computer hardware and software systems.
Those who see cyberethics essentially as a branch of professional ethics would likely draw on analogies from other professional fields, such as medicine and law. They would point out that in medical ethics and legal ethics, the principal focus of analysis is on issues of moral responsibility that affect individuals as members of these professions. By analogy, they would go on to argue that the same rationale should apply to the field of cyberethics—i.e., the primary, and possibly even exclusive, focus of cyberethics should be on issues of moral responsibility that affect computer/IT professionals.
eg:- Issues concerned with the development and implementation of critical software would fit closely with the professional model.
Cyberethics as a Field Socialogical /Descriptive Ethics
The two perspectives on cyberethics that we have examined thus far—professional ethics and philosophical ethics—can both be understood as normative inquiries into applied ethics issues. Normative inquiries or studies, which focus on evaluating and prescribing moral systems, can be contrasted with descriptive inquiries or studies. Descriptive ethics is, or aims to be, nonevaluative in approach; typically, it describes particular moral systems and sometimes also reports how members of various groups and cultures view particular moral issues. This kind of analysis of ethical and social issues is often used by sociologists and social scientists; hence, our use of the expression “sociological/descriptive perspective” to analyze this methodological framework.
2a)
ANSWER:- YES,policy vaccum exists hence going to step2b
2b)
ANSWER:- Various conceputal muddles present are:-
Firstly, when computers were introduced many of them were unaware of the scope of copying of software.
Secondly, they were also unaware about the fact paliarism was also wrong..
Thirdly, After sometime as peole got aware about the ethics of computer they started demanding for laws for them to help them. So the copyright law was introduced to stop plagiarism..
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.