Encyclopedia of Information Ethics and Security

Marian Quigley Monash University, Australia

InformatIon ScIence reference Hershey • New York Acquisitions Editor: Kristin Klinger Development Editor: Kristin Roth Senior Managing Editor: Jennifer Neidig Managing Editor: Sara Reed Assistant Managing Editor: Diane Huskinson Copy Editor: Maria Boyer Typesetter: Sara Reed Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-pub.com/reference and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanonline.com

Copyright © 2008 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of information ethics and security / Marian Quigley, Editor. p. cm. Topics address a wide range of life areas affected by computer technology, including: education, the workplace, health, privacy, intellectual property, identity, computer crime, cyber terrorism, equity and access, banking, shopping, publishing, legal and political issues, censorship, artificial intelligence, the environment, communication. Summary: “This book is an original, comprehensive reference source on ethical and security issues relating to the latest technologies. It covers a wide range of themes, including topics such as computer crime, information warfare, privacy, surveillance, intellectual property and education. It is a useful tool for students, academics, and professionals”--Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59140-987-8 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-59140-988-5 (ebook) 1. Information technology--Social aspects--Encyclopedias. 2. Information technology--Moral and ethical aspects--Encyclopedias. 3. Computer crimes- -Encyclopedias. 4. Computer security--Encyclopedias. 5. Information networks--Security measures--Encyclopedias. I. Quigley, Marian. HM851.E555 2007 174’.900403--dc22 2007007277

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this encyclopedia set is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this encyclopedia set are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Meta View of Information Ethics M Charles R. Crowell University of Notre Dame, USA

Robert N. Barger University of Notre Dame, USA

INTRODUCTION In philosophy, the study of being and existence is called “metaphysics.” This very term, derived from That computing and information systems give rise to its Greek roots, connotes a higher or more advanced specific ethical issues related to the appropriate uses (meta) understanding of reality (physics). A personal of such technology is a viewpoint that, according to metaphysical position is basically equivalent to some- Bynum (2001a), is traceable at least as far back as one’s worldview or fundamental beliefs about reality Norbert Wiener’s seminal work in the 1950s (Wiener, (Barger, 2001). Metaphysics is described here as a set 1954). From this important idea, a field of inquiry of “beliefs” because it is based on ideas that cannot be emerged that came to be known as “computer eth- proven or verified. ics” (Maner, 1980). As with many emerging fields, Aristotle called metaphysics “first principles” however, scholarly debate arose as to how “computer (McKeon, 1968) in deference to the notion that a ethics” should best be defined (cf. Bynum, 2001b). foundation of meaning is prerequisite to the interpre- While various distinct positions have been advanced tation of any particular events or actions within the in this regard (e.g., Moor, 1985; Johnson, 2001), a broad larger universe of that meaning. The reason more than characterization of the field is that “computer ethics” one metaphysics exists is that different people adopt deals with the personal and social impacts of informa- different personal explanations of reality. Once a per- tion technology, along with the ethical considerations sonal metaphysical worldview is adopted, that view that arise from such impacts (Bynum, 2001b). More inevitably influences personal decisions about ethical recent views localize “computer ethics” within a still matters (Barger, 2001). It is in this sense, then, that a broader philosophical domain of “information ethics” person’s view of reality is propaedeutic to one’s stand (Floridi & Sanders, 2002). on value questions. In this article it is not our aim to review historical As others have noted, several traditional philosophi- or current developments in the field of information eth- cal positions exist that commonly influence personal ics, per se. Rather, our goal is to discuss an important metaphysics and ethical decision making (Barger, but somewhat neglected aspect of this field: namely, 2001; Johnson, 2001). The purpose of the next section its “metaethics.” In its broadest sense, metaethics can is to review those positions along with their primary be defined as the generic name for inquiries about the ethical implications. source of moral judgments as well as about how such judgments are to be justified (Barger, 2001). Positioned in this way, metaethics is not about isolated individual bACKGROUND: mAJOR judgments concerning whether certain actions are mETAPHYSICAL POSITIONS AND right or wrong. Rather, it is about how one’s particu- THEIR ETHICS lar worldview, also known as a “Weltanschauung,” is propaedeutic to the formulation of such ethical judg- Idealism ments. A person’s worldview is his or her own collection of beliefs about reality and existence, which can The term “idealism” applies to a collection of meta- be multifaceted including beliefs relating to whether physical positions, all of which share a common notion human nature is fundamentally good or evil, whether that the mental realm predominates over the physical absolute standards of conduct exist, whether there is a (Wikipedia, 2006). Many philosophers (e.g., Socrates, supreme power in the universe, and so forth.

Plato, Berkeley, Kant) have emphasized the primacy Realism of mentality because they believed the mind to be the only means by which human experience occurs. This metaphysical position, also known as naturalism In this view, humans can have no direct experience (Barger, 2001), holds that reality is material, natural, of physical objects, only mental perceptions (i.e., and physical. As such, reality is quantitative, mea- “ideas”) of objects fueled by the senses. This has led surable, governed by the laws of nature, and subject some idealists to question whether or not anything to the operation of cause and effect. The universe, other than the mental realm really exists. It is in this according to the realist, is one of natural design and sense, then, that idealism elevates mentality, which it order in which matter takes precedence over mentality. holds to be a uniquely human quality, to a position of For some realists, if the mind exists at all, it can be preeminent importance. Only ideas are thought to be explained by physical mechanisms like brain functions able to achieve a kind of perfection or “ideal” form; the (Searle, 2000). physical realm, if it exists at all, is flawed, imperfect, The resultant ethical position that flows from a real- and subject to degradation over time. Ideas, on the istic metaphysics holds that conformity with nature is other hand, can achieve a kind of timeless, universal good. Therefore, people should strive to promote habits quality that physical objects cannot. that would, for example, enhance personal health (by Idealism gives rise to a form of “deontological” or exercising, not smoking, etc.), or protect our environ- duty-based ethics perhaps epitomized in the work of ment and its resources (by not polluting, recycling, etc.). Immanuel Kant (Johnson, 2001). Kant believed that In a sense, realism leads to its own form of deontological because the essence of human nature was its rationality, ethics with a universal mandate derived from a more a code of conduct was required befitting that essence. natural law: live in harmony with nature. Accordingly, Kant proposed several forms of what he called the “Categorical Imperative” as the universal Pragmatism standard for human action. The first form emphasized its universality: “Act only on that maxim by which Within a pragmatic metaphysics, reality is not so easily you can at the same time will that it should become a localized in the mental or physical realms as it is for universal law” (Kant, 1993). In other words, if you wish the idealist and realist. The pragmatist finds meaning to establish a particular ethical standard, you must be neither in ideas nor things, but rather believes that real- willing to agree that it would also be right for anyone ity is a process, a dynamic coming-to-be instead of a else to follow it. As Barger (2001) indicates, this form static state of being. Reality is to be found in change, is very close to what is commonly known from the activity, interaction, and experience. Since change is New Testament as the “golden rule.” ubiquitous, nothing can have a permanent essence or A second form of the Categorical Imperative em- identity. The only constant is change, and the only phasizes the dignity of human nature that derives from absolute is that there are no absolutes! its mentality: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether Pragmatism leads to a form of utilitarian ethics in your own person or in that of another, always as an (Barger, 2001; Johnson, 2001) in that all moral values end and never as a means only” (Kant, 1993). Reflected must be tested and proven in practice since nothing in this form is the notion that because each human is a is intrinsically good or bad. If certain actions work rational being, all humans should be treated in a man- to achieve a socially desirable end, then these actions ner respectful of this quality (Johnson, 2001). Like the are ethical and good. Consequences, therefore, define timeless perfection of ideas, idealist moral imperatives good and evil on this view. The maxim that follows are a priori and absolute. That is, these imperatives from this pragmatic ethics is that “the end justifies the do not admit of exceptions and are stated in terms of means.” That is, if an act is useful for achieving some “always” or “never.” For example: “Always tell the laudable goal, then it becomes good. Accordingly, a truth” or “Never tell a lie.” means has no intrinsic absolute value, but only gains value relative to its usefulness for achieving some desired result.

Meta View of Information Ethics

Results or consequences are the ultimate “measure” blended Worldviews of goodness for a pragmatist, since the usefulness of a M means to an end can only be judged after the fact by the No person’s actions are governed all the time by just effects of that means. Thus, for the pragmatist, there one worldview (Barger & Barger, 1989). The possi- can be no assurance that any action is good until it is bility of “blended worldviews” has led some writers tried. Even then, its goodness is only held tentatively, to posit guidelines for dealing with ethical dilemmas as long as it continues to work. If ever there is a dis- that appear to be derived from multiple metaphysical pute about which ends should be pursued and which positions. Donn Parker (cited in Rifkin, 1991, p. 84), means are more effective for achieving an end, the for example, offers several “guidelines for action” that pragmatist looks for guidance from the group since seem at first glance to include both idealistic and prag- collective wisdom is more highly esteemed than that matic elements. Parker’s seemingly idealistic guideline of an individual. Since the group is valued more than is something he calls the “Kantian Universality Rule,” the individual, the pragmatist strives for “the greatest which states: “If an act or failure to act is not right for good for the greatest number” (Barger, 2001). everyone to commit, then it is not right for anyone to commit” (Rifkin, 1991). This Universality Rule is just Existentialism an alternate formulation of the Categorical Imperative discussed above. Another of Parker’s guidelines is called The existentialist joins with the pragmatist in rejecting “The Higher Ethic,” which states: “Take the action that the belief that reality is a priori and fixed. But, unlike achieves the greater good” (Rifkin, 1991). This maxim a pragmatic emphasis on the controlling group, the appears to be an instance of the pragmatic motto we existentialist holds that reality must be defined by discussed earlier. Whatever the exact philosophical each autonomous individual. The existentialist notions analysis of Parker’s guidelines may prove to be, the of “subjectivity” and “phenomenological self” imply fact that they are in sync with seemingly different that the meaning or surdity of an otherwise “absurd” worldviews could enhance their practical usefulness for universe is individually determined (Sartre, 1992). ethical decision making among those with a “blended” Any meaning attached to the world must be put there metaphysics. by the individual and it will be valid only for that individual. Thus, each person’s world and self-identity is the product of that person’s own choices. In a sense, ImPLICATIONS FOR THREE each person can be defined as the sum of his or her COmPUTING-RELATED ETHICAL choices. It follows, therefore, that reality is different DILEmmAS for each individual. We each live in our own world and are determined/defined by our choices. The different worldviews noted above seem to offer An existentialist worldview also leads to a kind of divergent solutions for many possible ethical informa- utilitarian ethics in which moral values are individual- tion technology-related dilemmas. We select but three ized through personal rather than group choices. Each hypothetical dilemmas for purposes of illustration. personal choice reflects a preference for one alternative They have to do with piracy, privacy, and authority- over others. Anyone who makes a choice freely and deception. While these examples are set in an educa- “authentically” (Sartre, 1992) is therefore acting in a tional context, we think they are readily transferable moral fashion. This aspect of existentialism is remi- to other settings. niscent of Polonius’s advice to his son in Shakespeare’s Our argument here is that any divergence in the Hamlet: “To thine ownself be true” (Act I, Scene iii). “ethically correct” solutions to these dilemmas can As some have suggested (e.g., Onof, 2004), existen- be traced rather directly to the seemingly different tialism, especially as presented by Sartre (1992), may ethical standards associated with each separate world- represent a form of relativistic moral imperative with view. Due to space limitations, we will consider two the same kind of universality that characterizes Kant’s hypothetical response alternatives for each dilemma: Categorical Imperative. a deontological or “absolutist” type of solution and a “relativist” utilitarian solution.

Meta View of Information Ethics

Piracy owner of those files, unless the owner knowingly grants permission to others. First consider piracy, a common ethical dilemma in A relativist position would be based on the conse- today’s digital world, involving wrongful appropria- quences. If the intrusive student logged the account tion of computing resources. As an example, suppose owner off the system after snooping around and never someone uses a personal account on a university’s revealed to anyone any confidential information he or mainframe computer for something that has no direct she may have seen, then no harm would be done. So, relation to university business. Such use could involve it could be argued that the intrusive student’s snooping anything from sending a personal e-mail message to a was not unethical. But, if that student passed on any friend, to conducting a full-blown private business on personal or confidential information about the account the computer (billing, payroll, inventory, etc.). Is there owner, then unethical action could be involved since anything unethical about such computer usage? potential harm might result. An absolutist position would likely say that the above- described activities are indeed unethical whether only Authority-Deception the e-mail message is involved or the larger-scale business activities (although an absolutist would recognize Finally, let us look at a dilemma involving what may a difference between the two in the degree of wrong arguably be regarded as an abuse of power by author- being done) provided that such use is prohibited ity, but which certainly involves at least an instance by the university’s published computer utilization of deception. A student is strongly suspected by his policies. The guiding principle here would be based university of a major “fair-use” computer-policy viola- on the purposes for which the university (i.e., the tion involving a hoax e-mail allegedly being sent by the computing-resource owner) intended the computer to student under the name of a prominent administrator. be used. Any utilization for purposes other than what This e-mail proved to be exceedingly disruptive to stu- was intended, as specified in the usage policy, would dent affairs until it was identified as being fraudulent. be unethical. The student suspect, though not a professional hacker, On the other hand, a relativist might say that only was adept enough to cover his electronic tracks well. the full-scale business activities really were unethical However, the administration decided to confront the because they tied up too much memory and slowed student and falsely inform him that they had hired an down the machine’s operation, thereby depriving other outside expert whose skills were sufficient to uncover legitimate users of access to, or reasonable performance electronic evidence of the student’s perpetration of the of, the computing resources in question. However, the hoax. The suspect thus was being deceived in an ef- personal e-mail message might not be unethical because fort to force an admission of responsibility, which the it represented no significant drag on operations or no student eventually did provide. Did the administration deprivation of services/performance for other legitimate behave unethically in this instance? users. The guiding principle here is consequences or An absolutist position would maintain that lying harm: no harm, no foul. under any circumstances is wrong. This follows, of course, from an idealist emphasis on the universal Privacy importance of truth. A relativist could argue, however, that the “end justified the means” in this case. The Next consider a dilemma having to do with privacy. “greater good” was being served by any means used Suppose a student enters a public computer lab on to identify the perpetrator, dispense a severe penalty, campus and encounters a machine still logged into the and hopefully deter future instances of similar com- account of another student who forgot to log off when puter-use violations. she left. The student decides to access the personal files of this account owner that are available on the system. Is this behavior unethical? CONCLUSION AND FUTURE TRENDS An absolutist position would maintain that the behavior was unethical because the only person who There is little doubt that technology use will continue is entitled to access someone’s personal files is the to escalate. As it does, so will the potential for ethical

Meta View of Information Ethics dilemmas arising from such use. While there is some Peace (Eds.), Information ethics: Privacy and intellec- controversy about whether technology-based ethical tual property (pp. 19-37). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. M dilemmas are unique, or merely instances of age-old Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New moral questions (Johnson, 2001), it is clear that ethics York: Macmillan. must be an ever-increasing focus of our educational system at all levels. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J.W. (2002). Mapping the The field of moral psychology may have much to foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics and offer in this regard. As those who study the process of Information Technology, 4, 1-9. moral development formulate and test theories about rd various psychological and behavioral factors contribut- Johnson, D.G. (2001). Computer ethics (3 ed.). Upper ing to ethical decision making, it becomes possible to Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. consider whether or not and to what extent technology Kant, I. (1993). Critique of practical reason and other may impact those factors (cf. Crowell, Narvaez, & writings (L.W. Beck, Trans.). Chicago: University of Gomberg, 2005). Such efforts may help to illuminate Chicago Press. (Original work published 1788). the educational practices and tools that will be needed to effectively prepare students to understand and resolve Maner, W. (1980). Starter kit in computer ethics. New technology-related ethical dilemmas. Moreover, it is York: Helvetia Press. of continuing importance to explore how metaethical McKeon, R. (Ed.). (1968). The basic works of Aristotle. analysis may be helpful in understanding and promoting New York: Random House. moral education and personal development. Moor, J.H. (1985). What is computer ethics? In T.W. Bynum (Ed.), Computers and ethics (pp. 255-275). REFERENCES Malden, MA: Blackwell. Onof, C.J. (2004). Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Exis- Barger, R.N. (2001). Philosophical belief systems. tentialism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://www.nd.edu/ Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://www.iep.utm. ~rbarger/philblfs.html edu/s/sartre-ex.htm Barger, R.N., & Barger, J.C. (1989). Do pragmatists Rifkin, G. (1991). The ethics gap, 25(41), 83-85. choose business while idealists choose education? Charleston: Eastern Illinois University. (ERIC Docu- Sartre, J.-P. (1992). Being and nothingness (Hazel ment Reproduction Service No. ED 317 904) Barnes, Trans.). New York: Washington Square Press. (Original work published 1943). Bynum, T.W. (2001a). Computer ethics: Its birth and its future. Ethics and Information Technology, 3, Searle, J.R. (2000). Consciousness. Annual Review of 109-112. Neuroscience, 23, 557-578. Bynum, T.W. (2001b). Computer ethics: Basic concepts Shakespeare, W. (n.d.). Hamlet. In C. Knight (Ed.), and historical overview. The Stanford Encyclopedia The pictorial edition of the works of Shakespeare. of Philosophy. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http:// New York: P.F. Collier. plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2001/entries/ethics- Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: computer/ Cybernetics and society (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Crowell, C.R., Narvaez, D., & Gomberg, A. (2005). Mifflin. Moral psychology and information ethics: The effects Wikipedia. (2006). Idealism. Retrieved April 23, 2006 of psychological distance on the components of moral from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideali behavior in a digital world. In L.A. Freeman & A.G. sm&oldid=49148606

Meta View of Information Ethics

KEY TERmS Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy devoted to the study and analysis of reality and existence. Existentialism: A view that reality is not objec- Pragmatism: A view suggesting that reality is tive, rather it is subjective and must be constructed by not static in the sense of depending on absolute ideas each individual. or matter, but rather is ultimately “in process” and Idealism: A view that reality is ultimately grounded must be constantly probed and determined by social in the perfect, abstract, ideal world, the world of spirit experimentation. and ideas. Realism: A view emphasizing the ultimate im- Information Ethics: A field concerned with the portance of the natural world, that is, the physical, personal and social impacts of information technol- material, sensible universe. ogy, along with the ethical concerns to which those Worldview: A person’s own assumptions about impacts give rise. reality and existence; also known as a Weltanschauung Metaethics: The generic name for inquiries about or personal metaphysics. the source of moral judgments (i.e., about their basis) as well as about how such judgments are to be justified.