Read carefully through the topics below and try to determine which topics you would most be interested in. Spend at least 30 min. conducting a literature review on your two or three favorites, and peruse some of the articles you find to ensure that these indeed are topics that will hold your interest. Then complete your Initial Worksheet, which prioritizes at least several topics; the more, the better. Bring your Initial Worksheet to class on Tuesday, May 22 and hold on to it.
| Topic Title |
Description and controversies |
|
| 1. Addiction |
With excerpts from foxnews.com, 25 Aug 2006: Keeping employees on electronic leashes such as laptops, BlackBerries, and other devices that keep them constantly connected ... could soon lead to lawsuits by those who grow addicted to the technology, a U.S. academic warns. Gayle Porter, associate professor at Rutgers University, has written a paper that states workers whose personal lives suffer as a result of tech addictions could turn their sights on their employers.
The paper, which is still under review and expected to be published in an academic journal in the near future, highlights the potential for fallout resulting from technologies initially aimed at boosting a company's productivity.
In Motion Ltd.'s BlackBerry wireless device, jokingly dubbed the "CrackBerry" by some, is well known for what some describe as its addictive properties. Others complain of simply being unable to unplug at home, with laptops, emails or conference calls keeping them working into the wee hours. Porter argues that litigation could be the next step, as employees seek redress for technology dependence.
Is it ethical for employers to either encourage or to require their employees to stay connected? Is this an appropriate/fair implementation of wireless technologies? Should addiction to such devices be attributed to employers who insist on their use, both inside and outside the office? If problems arise, where should the responsibility lie? With the employer? the employee? manufacturers of such devices? Why or why not? Select your side, and defend it thoroughly. |
| 2. Access to Medical Data |
National health care policies continue to be a part of our national agenda and debate.
One topic of concern is whether or not we should institute a national computer database of all of our medical records, and/or implement a smart-card system. A related and important concern is access to medical information: who should have access to your records, and under what circumstances? HIPAA has done much to protect our privacy, but does it go far enough? Has it gone too far?
The Bush administration has pledged more than $100 million in an effort to convert medical records from paper to electronic form. Patients are increasingly "medically mobile," moving among many health care providers, and the difficulty of securing paper copies of their medical history can hamper treatment. But are the problems with paper records severe enough to warrant the risks of fully computerized --and possibly centralized--records?
What are the benefits? What are the risks? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Could such a system ever really be secure enough? How much risk is acceptable? Who should be responsible for the accuracy of such records? |
| 3. Blogs and wikis |
[With excerpts from SpokesmanReview.com, 27 Aug 2006.] The notion that "anyone can be a publisher" has never been so visible, nor so controversial. It was a blogger who dug up the story on the infamous "Rathergate" fiasco, eventually leading to Dan Rather's resignation as anchor at CBS.
There has been much controversy concerning the role of bloggers as journalists: are they really journalists? should they enjoy First Amendment privileges, such as protecting their sources?
Controversies continue to brew around wikis as well; are they reliable? are they fair to those who rely on them? Political candidates across the country have been caught doctoring their own entries, erasing politically embarrassing facts, and spinning their positions on issues. But their opponents also change information online, straining Wikipedia's strength as a reliable resource. In late 2006, Wikipedia briefly banned all editing of entries done from comptuers linked to congressional offices.
On the other hand, proponents of wikis believe that open-source editing itself can fix many of the abuses, especially for entries that receive a lot of attention. And a study conducted in 2006 suggested that the error rate in Wikipedia is about the same as it is in Encyclopedia Britannica.
You may focus only on blogs, only on wikis, or you may address both. If you choose the latter, the two topics need to be integrated/connected in your arguments; in other words, we want to avoid papers/presentations that aregue for two separate thesis, one after the other.
Select your side, and defend it thoroughly. |
| 4. Digital Manipulation |
With digital techniques, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish what's real from what's not. Some years ago, National Geographic digitally moved one of the great pyramids of Giza so that the photo fit better on their cover. Time Magazine darakened the shadows on O.J. Simpson's face on its now-infamous cover photo, resulting in making him look more ominous. You've likely read about more recent manipulations, including CBS's manipulation of Katie Couric, making her appear 20 pounds lighter.
We can make people appear in places or times in which they never existed, or eliminate them altogether, or replace them with other people. We can alter images to make people younger or more beautiful, simply to sell a product or an image.
When--and in which industries--do such manipulations cross the line to deception, thus rendering them unethical? Think about the various industries where digital manipulation can stir up controversy as to what is ethical and what isn't: photojournalism; the huge glamour industry; politics. What are the advantages of manipulation? the dangers? who is affected?
On the other hand, shouldn't people be sophisticated enough to know that photo-retouching has been going on for decades, even before we had computers and software to make such changes so simple and convincing? How is this different with regard to ethics? or is it?
Consider ethics and fairness to all concerned, including children and adolescents. Where should responsibility lie when things go wrong? |
| 5. Digital Rights Management |
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to publish information that can be used to circumvent technological measures put in place by copyright holders to protect their works (music, movies, etc.) against piracy; among many other things. However, the same copy-protection measures that prevent massive duplication can prevent individual consumers from making important backup copies, or making copies that are readable on a different (perhaps portable) device; or excerpting parts of copyrighted works for comment or criticism?what is called fair use.
The controversy continues, and centers on differing opinions that concern fair use, free speech, and intellectual property rights. Many individuals are being sued by the RIAA. During late fall 2004, the FCC imposed a "broadcast flag" regime for over-the-air digital television that further limits what consumers can and cannot do with broadcast television content. In May 2005, however, a U.S. State Court of Appeals threw out the broadcast flag rules on the grounds that the FCC didn't have statutory authority to adopt them. But proponents of the flag are doing what they can to ask Congress to provide that authority.
The controversy extends into other media realms, with arguments over a consumer's right to bypass DVD copy protection, and the right to publish descrambling codes. DeCSS, written by a 15-year-old from Norway (Jon Lech Johansen), is a tiny software utility that copies an encrypted DVD file and saves the file on a hard disk, minus the encryption. DeCSS became an important utility in the use of the DivX codec, which is a relatively new compression format that allows movies to be full or wide screen, with full fidelity stereo sound for full feature length movies. Once DeCSS is used, one may then easily use the DivX codec to play, watch and copy various movies, TV shows and videos.
In November 2001, a Court of Appeals for the State of Calif. overturned an injunction that was designed to block the publication of DeCSS; the court ruled that the source code is an expression of free speech. And more recently in Oslo, Norway, Johansen was acquitted of violating computer break-in laws. He was found innocent on all counts.
Are the information (music, movies) owners justified in their attempt to prevent the unauthorized duplication of their property? In other words, should the electronics industry be required to include anti-theft protection in its products? Should circumventing scrambling protection be allowed, or allowed only within certain parameters? Should broadcasters be forced to use flags? When is sharing ethical, and why? What rights should consumers have? What is the original intent of copyright protection? What about the public domain? Consider responsibility, fairness, and ethics to everyone involved. |
| 6. Electronic voting |
Hanging and pregnant chads, hand-counts, re-counts, missing ballots, the Florida fiasco... given the problems that we have experienced with manual voting systems over the years--especially during the last presidential election; it's no wonder that public officials have called for an update to our current methods of voting. Two basic forms are being tested and debated: Electronic Voting Machines (at polling places), and Internet voting (voting from your computer at home, school, or most anywhere there's a computer with Internet access).
Is this a realistic possibility on a local, state, and/or national scale? What kinds of problems would Internet voting pose for elections? Would old problems such as fraud and inaccessibility rear their ugly heads again in new forms, and how would such problems be addressed? Would Internet voting be accessible and desirable for all people, or would it pose challenges to certain individuals, making voting less appealing or available to some, thus creating a new digital divide?
Would such an idea be cost-effective? Would polling places be used, or would people be able to vote from home (and would that make the system unfair to some)? Shouldn't this be a civic activity that is done in a public setting, with real people in our midst? Aren't we disconnected enough?
What lessons have emerged from trial runs of Internet voting? Would this system be preferable to current methods in certain aspects? What problems does Internet voting solve? What problems does it make worse? Where, as a nation, should we be heading in this regard |
| 7. Face recognition |
September 11 created a boon for the biometric industry, which centers on equipment that identifies people by using characteristics thought to be unique to each person such as fingerprints, voice or retina patterns, and even unique spacing of facial features. Some organizations are implementing systems to identify individuals through face scanning.
While people are aware that their retinas are being scanned or that their fingerprints are being compared to a digital database in order for them to access a building, face scanning techniques are different. Scanning faces in a crowd, and digitizing/saving those images (possibly indefinitely), can be done from a distance, surreptitiously, and completely without a person's knowledge or consent. Moreover, the individual's image could be used for other purposes, or bought and sold for reasons unrelated to their initial collection. There is growing unease among many Americans about whether the information obtained from such biometric devices might be abused by government agencies, employers, or businesses.
Should government and private industry be given carte blanche to use such technology without notifying their clientele or the public at large? (Consider: airline industry; sports and entertainment complexes; the local Post Office; a branch bank; City Hall.) If so, under what circumstances could that captured data be used? Should there be a time limit as to how long it is maintained? Should re-sale of that information be allowed? What are the implications of privacy violation here? On the other hand, if people are told about the data collection, wouldn't that make the system far less effective in catching criminals or potential terrorists? Aren't cameras used already in many stores, businesses, etc? How/why is this different? Which right should outweigh the other? Are we in danger of crossing some ethical boundary here? |
| 8. Gender and the Sciences |
Why are there so few female computer scientists? Electrical engineers? The numbers have actually been decreasing over the years. Does that matter, and, if so, to whom? Consider that the U.S. has a shortage of talented computer scientists, and that individuals are being recruited from abroad to help us to fill the void. Enrollments in Computer Science curricula (majors/minors), for example, especially at the undergraduate level, have dropped dramatically in the past few years, so we have to consider that the trend might continue.
There are two important controversies that relate to this topic.
First: Is our society at a disadvantage by not encouraging females to pursue degrees in C.S. or electrical engineering or other similar fields? For example:
Is the computer industry at a disadvantage as a result of this lack of participation by such a significant percentage of the population? In addition, are women at a disadvantage by not being a part of such a lucrative field? [Consider a report released during spring 2005 by UNC-CH that Computer Science majors are now at the top of the list in terms of mean beginning salaries; those who graduate with a four-year degree.] What about consumers? (Consider violent video games, the vast majority created by young white males.) Consider what women might offer in the C.S. workplace.
Second: Who or what is to blame for this shortage?
Are girls discouraged from engaging in studies or behaviors that could lead to such lucrative and rewarding careers? If so, who is responsible?schools? teachers? parents? the media who present stereotypical nerds behind glowing computer screens? All of the above? And should we as a society do something to change this imbalance? Why or why not? If so, what should be done? and what are the risks? If not, why not?
[Consider: On 14 Jan. 2005, it was widely reported that Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, spoke before a meeting of the National Bureau of Economic Research about the causes for women's under-representation in science. He suggested that, since fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school, perhaps innate, rather than social, differences explain why so few women are successful in these fields. Not surprisingly, there has been a huge backlash concerning his comments.]
Conversely, is all of this simply a case of females themselves consciously choosing not to follow these paths for completely different, compelling, and guilt-free reasons? If so, what are they? Why? So should anything be done to change their conceptions (or misconceptions) about the field? Or change the field itself so that it is more appealing to such a large portion of the population? Would it be advantageous to take action, at least at some level? If so, what should be done, how, and by whom? If not, why not? |
| 9. Government Access to Private Data |
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution of the United States reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This amendment (as well as the First) has been used as a basis for restricting the kinds of information that the government can require that you, or businesses with whom you transact, provide to them. In order to protect individual rights, our legal system has historically required that there be some pre-existing evidence of wrongdoing before an investigation can begin (and before such a court order could be granted). There are very few exceptions (one that comes to mind: roadblocks to catch intoxicated drivers).
Numerous privacy laws (although most have gaping loopholes, and a few have been gutted by parts of the USA PATRIOT ACT) are in place to protect consumers and citizens from government invasion of our financial, library, medical, and other sensitive records.
Problem is, the private sector has very little restriction on the kinds of information that it can collect, compile, and share about you. Entire industries have sprung up around "data mining," which is the automated extraction of hidden predictive information from databases.feeding it as much data as can be collected, and then "mining" that data to try to predict, for example, what a consumer might want to purchase; or if he/she is likely to default on a loan; and then selling that information to banks, financial institutions, credit bureaus, etc.
In fact, since 9/11, the government has become one of the largest consumers of the private data mining industry, for example, it uses software prediction models to determine if an individual might be prone to engage in terrorist or other criminal activities.
Very recent news reports have revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)'s presidentially approved domestic spying program has allowed for wiretaps of international phone and email communications of people inside the US without getting search warrants. Reports have further revealed that the NSA has been using that access, as well as access to telecommunications companies' databases, to data mine Internet logs and phone logs for suspicious patterns, presumably to find targets for the wiretapping program.
Is the government's increased use of the private data mining industry an ethical use of government resources? Consider that consumers and citizens rarely know that such information is being gathered, much less shared, about them. But shouldn't the threat of terrorism in the 21st century override the built-in safeguards (i.e. court oversight) that Americans have depended on? |
| 10. Hacker Ethics |
Should "intent to cause harm" be taken into account when penalties are given to those who break into computer systems, or who deface a Web site for political or social commentary? In other words, should punishment (if any) be much less severe for recreational hackers who intend no harm, or, in particular, for those who have an important social purpose, than it is for "crackers" who break in with the intent of committing a crime, such as stealing trade secrets or destroying files? Why or why not?
In other words, is it unethical to break into a government or corporate computer if one has good intentions, such as to point out a security leak, or to catch a polluter that might not otherwise be caught, and/or for political activism ("hacktivism")? Can't the ends justify the means in special cases, or is the action itself always unethical? Why?
Please note: This topic is not intended to cover the practice of government agencies or companies who hire former hackers/crackers to point out their system vulnerabilities. That is a different issue, and one we find far less compelling for debate (i.e., there is no compelling controversy). |
| 11. Internet Wiretapping |
With excerpts from EFF.org
Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994 to make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap digital telephone networks. CALEA forced telephone companies to redesign their network architectures to make wiretapping easier. It expressly did not regulate data traveling over the Internet.
But now federal law enforcement agencies want to change that. On March 10, 2004, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) filed a joint petition with the FCC. The petition requested that CALEA's reach be expanded to cover communications that travel over the Internet. Thus, Broadband providers would be required to rebuild their networks to make it easier for law enforcement to tap Internet "phone calls" that use VOIP applications such as Vonage, as well as online "conversations" using various kinds of instant messaging (IM) programs like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).
May 14, 2007 was the compliance deadline for all facilities based service providers (and some VOIP providers). This means that today, it would be possible for federal law enforcement to listen in, provided they have a valid court order. On one side, this could help be an early detection or enhance the abilities of these agencies. On the other hand, cost of compliance could impact the average consumer as the cost will trickle down to the user. But, worse yet, it is possible that general Internet security could diminish.
Who is right in all of this? Will the advantages gained from court ordered surveillance outweigh any other disadvantages? How does this impact the average Internet user? Could it make the Internet as a whole become less secure? How does this affect international providers?
|
| 12. Internet Service Providers - Responsibilities Abroad |
You've heard the news reports and criticisms. In the U.S., the right to anonymous speech, especially political speech, is protected by the First Amendment, and valued by U.S. citizens. Many of the judges and juries in "John Doe" cases (wherein an Internet Service Provider has been asked to reveal the identity of one of its users) have purported that there must be sufficient probable cause of an illegal action (such as revealing trade secrets, or libelous speech) before such a warrant can be issued by a third party seeking to reveal said identity.
A former civil servant from southwestern China was sentenced to an eight-year term for "inciting subversion" after posting essays detailing local corruption. In September 2005, Reporters Without Borders accused Yahoo of providing information that led to a ten-year prison term for Chinese journalist Shi Tao. Free-speech groups predict that more disclosures detailing cooperation with government censors are likely to surface. "Profit makes you dull in morality," said one critic.
On the other hand, companies are under shareholder pressure to enter the China market, which has 100 million Internet users, second only to the U.S. Yahoo has said that it must obey the laws of the countries in which it operates. Google's decision to censor keywords rejected by Beijing in the Chinese version of its search engine also came under fire.
Are U.S.-based Internet technology companies acting ethically when they succumb to pressures from repressive governments? Should they take they business elsewhere? Or is this action necessary to ensure a continued presence in those countries? Is there a rational, ethical solution? |
| 13. National IDs |
(Includes excerpts from csoonline.com)
The question, "May I see some ID?" is going to get a lot more complicated.
In May 2005, the Real ID Act was signed into law by President Bush. The Act states, in effect, that in May 2008, Americans will need to get a federally approved ID card. These new ID cards must have "machine readable" technology built into them, as described by the Department of Homeland Security. The new ID cards would be required for Americans to board a plane or train, open a bank account, to enter federal buildings, or to take advantage of nearly any other public service.
A coalition of conservative groups and privacy advocates is urging the Homeland Security Department not to include the use of radio frequency identification contactless chips in its regulations for implementing the Real ID Act for state driver's licenses.
Those in support of the law say that it will make it more difficult for terrorists to establish identities in the United States. The Real ID act was part of an unrelated $82 billion military spending bill, which opponents claim had much to do with its passage.
In most cases, this national ID would come in the form of your state driver's license. We use them to prove our age and identity when purchasing alcohol or tobacco. We use them at airport security checks. Under the new law, driver's licenses w have to meet standards that the Dept. of Homeland Security will define. The National Conference of State Legislatures officials issued a report on August 1, estimating that the national ID scheme could cost states $13 billion as they try to restructure motor vehicle offices.
Privacy advocates decry the measure because they fear it will make identity theft easier. Every time the card is swept for verification, the data will end up on a computer in a bank, government office or possibly a retail store. Those systems are susceptible to viruses and other hacks. Bruce Schneier, CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, wrote in his blog that the move is nothing more than a power-grab by the federal government over states' systems for issuing driver's licenses. National IDs, he says, will actually make us less secure.
So who is right? Will a national ID card make life difficult for terrorists? Or will they put our lives, and our identities, at even greater risk? |
| 14. Net Neutrality |
The central question is whether broadband network providers, for example, cable and telephone companies, can prioritize the data they transmit to give an advantage to the most important or most profitable traffic. Traditionally, consumer Internet service has been largely wide open, with no preference given to one kind of traffic over another; this is called "best-efforts" service. The net neutrality movement is an effort to preserve this open system, through government regulation, in the broadband age and beyond.
To its supporters, net neutrality is a way of protecting innovation by ensuring that all Internet traffic is treated equally. To its opponents, it is a threat to innovation because it inhibits network providers who believe that the capital raised by charging for "tiered service" would enable major improvements in broadband infrastructure. |
| 15. Public Information Online |
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 2003 that it is Constitutional for cities, states, or counties to publish names, addresses, and photos of anyone convicted of a sex crime. More and more states have put up online databases so citizens can look up convicted neighbors and employers can more easily screen job applicants. In July 2006, the Justice Department unveiled the National Sex Offender Public Registry, which directly links to individual state databases (something like 24 to date).
But even more worrisome to civil liberties groups is the fact that private organizations are scouring millions of public records, reorganizing and repackaging them, and making them easily available (for a fee) over the Internet. What if errors are made, resulting in difficulties for the persons involved? Who should be responsible in those cases? As reported in the 22 August 2005 issue of Newsweek, Google has launched a free Web site which has grafted publicly available state sex-offender registries onto Google maps. Just type in your address and up pops a map of your neighborhood with red flags by residences of sex offenders.
Is it fair or ethical to divulge such personal and sensitive information on the Web, where it can be viewed with a few mouse clicks by anyone on earth who has Web access? Would such disclosure, specifically, in a world wide forum, be equivalent to a modern form of public branding? "To make documents available at the click of a mouse button is tantamount to active distribution and voyeurism," one critic wrote. What are the risks here? What about vigilantes who might seek revenge? But on the other hand, isn't this public information anyway? One simply can visit the county courthouse/records office and find that information there anyway. Is it different on the Internet? And if so, is that good or bad? Why or why not? Consider what kinds of behaviors are legally termed "child molestation," and that the federal definition of a minor is 18 years or younger.
On the other hand, isn't it possible that this kind of access could prevent future molestations? What if the person were moving into your neighborhood, or would come into frequent contact with your family? Wouldn't it help to know about his/her whereabouts? Shouldn't that information be readily available? Shouldn't the convicted sex offender give up his/her basic rights?
What is fair? What is ethical? Do you agree with the Supreme Court's arguments? What is the best solution, and why?
You may increase this topic to include the grabbing up of other kinds of public information from courthouses and making those kinds of records available with a few clicks of the mouse. (Consider the kind of information in divorce proceedings, for example; which are considered public records.) |
| 16. RFID Chips |
In October 2004, the FDA approved the use of RFID chips in humans. RFID--Radio Frequency IDentification--are chips that can be implanted in animals and in humans--just under the skin with a simple injection. They are also used heavily in products--in everything from clothing to passports.
RFID chips store coded information that can be read with a scanner, similar to the way a grocery store scanner reads UPC bar codes. They are used extensively in farm animals. Only a small number of people so far have opted to implant the chip in their bodies, most of them in countries outside the U.S. In Mexico, for example, high-profile officials have received a product called a VeriChip to allow police to track them in case they are kidnapped. In Barcelona, club crawlers use the microchip to enter a VIP area and, through links to a different database, speed payment much like a smartcard.
However, the RFID chip raises some serious ethical questions--the most obvious being the potential erosion of civil liberties and incredible opportunity for social control of any subset of a country's citizens that might be determined to be appropriate recipients, such as people on parole, or former criminals. On the other hand, many would welcome these tracking devices--such as those who care for people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, or parents worried about how well their day care center is watching their children. But Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU told National Public Radio, this technology "really can become the key to a universal system of tracking." Among the many proposals to emerge from the 9-11 Commission was to put data chips in driver's licences.
Is the unfettered use of RFID a risky business? Could we be heading for the nearest slippery slope? Should strict government oversight and guidelines be put in place, or will this over-stifle their use? Is this technology to be embraded as another form of protection during very unstable times? What is ethical? |
| 17. Create a Sentient AI? |
Should humans strive to build artificial beings/computers that, in 50 or 100 years from now, might evolve into intelligent and, more importantly, sentient (self aware) beings? Why or why not? Is it ethical to pursue such a goal? Why or why not? What would creating such machines mean for the rest of us? Is it too dangerous, too risky, or simply unethical?
A discovery in Feb 2004 by a group of leading economists concluded that the most recent drops in factory employment is not largely due to foreign displacement, as has been reported--but the real perpetrator of factory job losses is still productivity: automation, mechanization, and computerization. Couldn't this happen to white collar jobs? If such beings were able to outperform the best humans in traditionally white collar jobs, where would that leave many of us? Don't human beings need to contribute to society to be fulfilled, happy, complete? Or would the predictions of old--that computers and robots would free us up to do more creative thinking and the pursuit of happiness--finally come to fruition?
If you agree that we should pursue building such computers or robots, should they be offered the same rights as humans? Or should they be treated as property with no rights? How might they fit into our society? Would it be immoral to unplug one, or to destroy it if it does not want to be shut down? Why or why not? Should the government oversee such projects, or should it be left completely to the private sector?
|
| 18. The Virtual Office |
Computers, faxes, high speed Internet access, multi-function cell phones, beepers, Blackberries, the Internet, e-mail, voice mail, IM ... It is possible that the company of the future may not include shared working/office physical space. Why should a company provide expensive office space for you when you can be equipped more cheaply to work from home or from your car? That is, who would benefit most from such an arrangement--the employee, or employer, or neither? Why? Also consider social benefits that affect society as a whole (less traffic, pollution, etc.).
What are some drawbacks? What are the tradeoffs of your position? What are some solutions? |
| 19. Web-tracking, Cookies, Adware |
Web tracking, web bugs, adware, cookies--are some of these practices really ethical, considering that most individuals don't even know that their web surfing habits and other actions are being recorded, or that an adware program has been installed and running on their PCs without their permission? Or that a cookies are being stored on their hard drives? Or that the information collected is often sold to marketers and other third parties such as huge data mining organizations? Even if such tools are used legally and only with good intent--e.g., to enhance a company's profits; to better serve customers; to ensure someone hasn't illegally installed their proprietary software, etc.--are they ethical? Why or why not? [Note that we are not talking about spyware programs used to purposely break the law, such as stealing passwords or bank account numbers in order to profit.]
Numerous bills have been introduced in each legislature to address on-line privacy, but they raise a host of questions about freedom of speech and impacts on the economy. Should the government's role be one of enforcing rules or of helping to set boundaries, both in the government and the private sector? Or should e-industries be allowed to set their own privacy agendas, as long as they don't break existing law? Should individuals be held responsible for protecting their own information? Should organizations require that customers can opt-in (rather than expecting them to opt out)? Are anonymizing tools enough, or do we need better laws? What can go wrong? Where should the responsibility lie when things go wrong? |
| 20. Workplace E-Monitoring |
Many private companies have implemented electronic employee monitoring techniques, and in many forms, from counting an employee's number of keystrokes per hour, to viewing employee screens in real time, to getting a report of Web sites she visited each week, and more. Companies say that electronic monitoring is a relatively inexpensive and effective way to catch cyberslackers and thieves, and can motivate their employees to do a good job. Critics claim that such dehumanizing systems can be ultimately self-destructive.
In one case, a woman who was employed at a large insurance company ran into just such a system. Suffering from a chronic, untreatable, and extremely painful urinary tract condition, she had to use the bathroom frequently and urgently. Her condition was known to her coworkers and supervisor, and was well-documented in her medical records. Despite her medical condition, she was one of the top performers in her department. Nevertheless, she had to go to court to keep her job (by claiming the condition was a legally-defined "disability") because her badge tracked the number of times she visited the bathroom and flagged her for termination. The system, it seemed, was programmed to never make exceptions, and corporate policy was that Human Resources was to terminate anyone flagged by the system. This is certainly an extreme example of a short-sighted executive decision.
In another case, monitoring employee email allowed one organization to finally catch the employee who had been revealing company trade secrets to a competitor, for a rather princely sum of money. The employee was eventually fired and prosecuted.
The practice (whether done surreptitiously or made know to employees) is legal in the U.S. But is this practice ethical? Do the benefits really outweigh the drawbacks? What are the ethics involved here? When should a company electronically monitor its employees, if at all? If so, under what conditions? |
