Ethics and Information technology
Part One
As has been noted by different authors, the advent of information technology has paved the way to various changes on how business, other transactions or social networking is done. Since, different companies wanted to gain competitive advantage with their information technology, most of the industries are conducting information technology projects. However, part of these information technology problems are the existence of ethical issues, specifically in terms of privacy, security, freedom and other ethical issues. The introduction of the computer and information and information as well as the increasing globalization in terms of business and politics defied boundaries through virtual communities. Such technological innovation contributed to existing social and ethical issues in the society.
It cannot be denied ethical issues because of the proliferation of information technology, still exists at present and authorities both within the public and private institutions never cease in finding ways to provide solutions against these type of issues. In this regard, it is important that information technology experts should have the means of countering the legal, moral and ethical for they alone are equipped with knowledge and skills to protect and uphold the interest of the public users of the information technology that will be implemented for specific industry. It is essential that the company is also responsible in abiding to ethical standards with regards to handling information of their clients, employees and other stakeholder to avoid moral and ethical issues in the future.
Part 2: Security and Privacy
Background of the topic/Current Situation
Privacy was directed for individual’s security reasons. Privacy regulates the way in which people relate to others in the society they belong. Aside from serving as a protection against disclosure, it promotes one’s ability to engage in social affairs, form friendships and human relationships, communicate with others, and associate with groups of people sharing similar values (Solove, 2003). Protection against disclosure shields people from the harshness of social judgment. Right to know or freedom to access information is an imperative fundamental right of people. It is also directed for security reasons. For instance, the openness of the government to access of information serves as an indispensable tool for combating corruption, waste, and poor governance (Blanton, 2002). However, public’s right to know faces some ethical and moral considerations. It is believed that with the advent of globalization and the very concept of freedom to information expands to indictment of privacy.
Nevertheless, privacy of most information is not guaranteed and most of the time, internet users are not secured with their personal data.. With the general mantra of the Information Age, information roams freely (Solove, 2003). Computer and telecommunication advances create a fast and free access of medical, credit, and other forms of data (Smith, 1994). Hence, it could be synthesize that individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know are two contradictory forces of law. Over the years, people developed gadgets and methodologies to make the transfer of data easier, faster and more convenient. With the development of the computer and the internet, the realization of this dream became a reality. People are able to transfer files over the internet with just a click of a button. Most importantly, the acceptance and accessibility of the internet in most nations allowed people to communicate to a wider audience. Ideas are now easily spread beyond borders in a fraction of a second.
Discussion
As an open system, communications through the Internet enable users to exchange information not knowing that shared information can be a way for other users to invade your privacy. In industries for example, those who have access with your personal information can use these for their specific purpose and your privacy is at stake. Security and privacy has been the problems of most information technology users. In a two-way flow in which every message delivered has an Internet Protocol (IP) address, every online connection made the server used identifies the IP address which could track the web browser through the type of computer used, the running operating system version, and the type of browser software used. A site that is connected to another allows knowledge of the referring site which is normally accessible to any advertiser online (Van Horn, 2004). A lot of experts have concerned regarding the existing limitations of some existing software to combat the aggressively growing privacy invasive technologies. Numerous articles and research activities have been conducted to validate and assess the effectiveness of PETs to preserve private information among Internet users.
According to Cranor (2005) encryption tools are not sufficient to counter PITs since websites can use encryption to restrict access to database or to collect valuable information from individuals who used encrypted channels to sell to marketers. Moreover, encryption software is not widely used unless it is built into applications that individuals use routinely and the encryption occurs without user intervention due to lack of awareness regarding such tools and the complexity of the systems for effective use. Meanwhile, P3P and identity manager applications are characterized with only voluntary adoption as many sites perceive P3P as negligible. Despite its usefulness in informing the users regarding web site privacy policies, it does not directly improve the privacy protection of such existing policies and does not guarantee the company’s implementation of their existing privacy policies.
Automated privacy audits, however, cannot offer comprehensive audit due to the numerous data channels and the volume of data being monitored as well as tracking systems that are not capable of detecting or locating the data used by all Internet browsers. Technical solutions to filter spams proved to be practically chaotic as email postage schemes cannot be applied and implemented among all Internet users and electronic mail account holders. Until now, experts cannot determine fully if existing spam filtering methods could serve privacy concerns for a long time. Cookie blocking tools are user-friendly but a large percentage of Internet browsers lack understanding and awareness on the concept of cookie, the reasons they would want to block it, and the techniques or methods to fully utilize cookie cutters and bug zappers. Lastly, anonymizers are expensive utilities for Internet users and are of limited function for transactions in which personal information must be explicitly revealed. These PETs have been developed for over twenty years to protect the interest of web users but studies have revealed the applications of the technologies are limited (Cranor, 2005).
However, IT experts are continuously finding ways to provide solutions against PITs. According to Maes, Guttman, and Moukas (1999) and Brennan (1999), if P3P developers attain the desired output for such PET, P3Ps will enable Internet users to select personal data and information which they would want to disclose as well as details of their identity which they do not want to reveal. Moreover, advance P3P systems can give web users the option to avoid visiting sites that obstructs their privacy preferences (Reagle & Cranor, 1998). Such condition will put pressure among website managers to create privacy policies according to the choices of the public and will likely result to more consumer-friendly Internet privacy policies (Coyle, 1999; Oakes, 1998). According to Guissani (1997) and Froomkin (1994), P3P and other PETs are still far from achieving information privacy goals for the benefit of Internet users except in other limited occasions which proved them useful and numerous studies and technological developments are needed to compete with highly advanced PITs.
Recommendation
Burkert (1997) highlighted that privacy concerns on the use of online communications Is greatly related and relevant to issues confronting the concept of social innovation. He argued that communication and information development and innovation should be studied under the principles of the social academic discipline since social beings are the privacy practitioners. In this light, problems and issues on data and information privacy on the Internet is a social goal and not a technological aim. Attaining the preferred identity disclosure during web browser will require formation of new norms and legal measures to create, define, and limit the acceptable and unacceptable utilization of personal information. Furthermore, information technologists are tasked to undertake social innovation in the filed of Information Technology in order to come up with legitimate online privacy policies which the public will likely follow (Samuelson, 2000).
Reference
Blanton, T 2002 July-August, ‘The World’s Right to Know’, Foreign Policy. Gale Group: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. pp. 50+.
Brennan, L 1999, ‘The Public Policy of Information Licensing’, 36 Hous. L. Rev. 61, p. 111.
Burkert, H 1997, Privacy-enhancing technologies: typology, critique, vision, Technology and privacy: the new landscape, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Center for Democracy and Technology 2006, Privacy Enhancing Technologies, <http://www.cdt.org/privacy/pet/>. Retrieve April 13, 2009
Coyle, K 1999, ‘P3P: Pretty Poor Privacy? A Social Analysis of the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P), < http://www.kcoyle.net/p3p.html>. retrieve April 13, 2009
Cranor, LF 2005, The Role of Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Center for Democracy and Technology, <http://www.cdt.org/privacy/ccp/roleoftechnology1.shtml>. retrieve April 13, 2009
Froomkin, A< 1994, ‘Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living With Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases’, Journal of Literature and Communications, vol. 15, p. 395.
Giussani, B 1997, ‘Feeding the Meter – With a Pocketful of Micropayments’, New York Times, Aug. 19, 1997.
Maes, P, Guttman, RH & Moukas, AG 1999, ‘Agents That Buy and Sell’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 3, p. 81.
Oakes, C 1998, ‘The Trouble with P3P’, Wired News, <http://www.wired.com/news>. Retrieve April 13, 2009.
Reagle, J & Cranor, LF 1999, ‘The platform for privacy preferences’, Communication of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 2 (February 1999), pp. 48-55.
Samuelson, P 2000, ‘Privacy as Intellectual Property?, Stanford Law Review, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1125.
Smith, HJ 1994, Managing Privacy: Information Technology and Corporate America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. p. 3.
Solove, DJ 2003, ‘The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy Protections Against Disclosure’, Duke Law Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 967+.
Van Horn, R 2004, ‘Technology: Cookies, Web Profilers, Social Network Cartography, and Proxy Servers’, Phi Delta Kappan,
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment