Editors Note: Computing

Curricula 2001 Guidelines

of IEEE-CS and the ACM

In 1991 the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the

Computer Society of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IELE-CS) adopted a set of curriculum guidelines for undergraduate pro-
grams in computing. Those guidelines, entitled Computing Curricula 1991
(CC1991), recommended the inclusion of significant “social and profes-
sional” content in any undergraduate computing curriculum:

Undergraduates also need to understand the basic cultural, social, legal, and
ethical issues inherent in the discipline of computing. They should understand
where the discipline has been, where it is, and where it is heading. They should
also understand their individual roles in this process, as well as appreciate the
philosophical questions, technical problems, and aesthetic values that play an
important part in the development of the discipline.

Students also need to develop the ability to ask serious questions about the
social impact of computing and to evaluate proposed answers to those ques-
tions. Future practitioners must be able to anticipate the impact of introducing
a given product into a given environment. Will that product enhance or
degrade the quality of life? What will the impact be upon individuals, groups,
and institutions?

Finally, students need to be aware of the basic legal rights of software and
hardware vendors and users, and they also need to appreciate the ethical
values that are the basis for those rights. Future practitioners must under-
stand the responsibility they will bear, and the possible consequences of failure.
They must understand their own limitations as well as the limitations of their
tools. All practitioners must make a long-term commitment to remaining cur-
rent in their chosen specialties and in the discipline of computing as a whole.
(ACM and IEEE-CS 1991)

In 1998 a joint task force of the same two professional organizations

undertook the job of updating and expanding CC1991 to take account
of computer-related developments during the 1990s. The resulting new
xviii EDITORS* NOTE

curriculum guidelines, entitled Computing Curricula 2001 (CC2001). placed

even more emphasis upon social and professional issues; and. for the first
time in history, created a separate “Area” within the CS Body of Knowledge
for the subfield of “Social and Professional Issues” (see [Link]/sigcse/
cc2001). This Area of the CS Body of Knowledge includes ten social and pro-

fessional “Knowledge Units” — seven “core” units and three “elective” ones
(see IEEE-CS and ACM 2001):

SP1 History of computing (core)

SP2 Social context of computing (core)

SP3 Methods and tools of analysis (core)

SP4 Professional and ethical responsibilities (core)

SP5

Risks and liabilities of computer-based systems (core)

SP6 Intellectual property (core)

SP7 Privacy and civil liberties (core)

SP8 Computer crime (elective)
SP9

Economic issues in computing (elective)

SP10 Philosophical frameworks (elective)

The present textbook, together with its related web-based resources, pro-
vides pedagogical materials (readings, study questions, sample student
papers, cases to analyze, bibliographies, and webliographies) to cover all
ten of these Knowledge Units in the Social and Professional Issues Area of
CC2001. (See the website of the Research Center on Computing & Society
([Link] or [Link]) and also the
website of the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility (www.
[Link]). Readers of this textbook are invited to send email

(bynum@[Link]) with suggested additions and corrections to

the web-based materials or to the book itself.)
Editors’ Introduction:
Ethics in the Information Age

Thus the new industrial revolution is a two edged sword. It may be used for
the benefit of humanity. . . . It may also be used to destroy humanity, and if it
is not used intelligently it can go very far in that direction.

Norbert Wiener

The Information Revolution

Powerful technologies have profound social consequences. Consider, for

example, the impact on the world of farming, printing, and industrialization.
Each of these technologies, when first created, brought about social and
ethical revolutions. Information and communication technology (ICT) is
no exception. Indeed, as we noted elsewhere:

Computing technology is the most powerful and most flexible technology

ever devised. For this reason, computing is changing everything — where and
how we work, where and how we learn, shop, eat, vote, receive medical care,
spend free time, make war, make friends, make love. (Rogerson and Bynum
1995. p. iv)

The information revolution therefore is not “merely technological:” it is

fundamentally social and ethical.

The reason why ICT is so powerful is well explained by James Moor in his
classic paper “What Is Computer Ethics?” (see Moor 1985, as well as chap-
ter 1 below). Computer technology, said Moor, is almost a “universal tool”
because it is “logically malleable” and therefore can be shaped and molded
to perform nearly any task. In industrialized nations this “universal tool”
has altered many aspects of life, such as banking, commerce, employment,
medicine, national defense, transportation, and entertainment. ICT has
thereby had profound effects — both good and bad — upon community life,
family life, education, freedom, and democracy (to name only a few examples).
2 EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

Itis clear that public policy-make

social thinkers — indee

social and ethical imp

rs, leaders of business

d every citizen — should have
acts ofinformation

and industry, teachers,

a keen interest in the
and communication technology.

Computer Practitioners and Professional Responsibility

Computer practitioners and many of their professional organizations have

recognized for decades that ICT has important social and ethical implica-
tions. Since the 1970s, for example, a number of professional organizations
have established codes of ethics, curriculum guidelines, and accreditation
requirements to help computer professionals understand and manage their
Special ethical responsibilities. For example, the Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM), the Computer Society of the Institute
Electronic Engineers (IEEE-CS),

the British Computer So

Australian Computer Society (ACS)

ofInformation Systems (
(see the Appendix to Pa
Board for Engineering

of Electrical and
ciety (BCS). the
. and the Institute for the M
IMIS) have all developed and adopted codes of ethics
rt III below). In the United States the Accredit
Technologies (ABET)
component in the computer engineer
puter Sciences Accredit

Board (CSAC/CSAB) al

anagement

ation
has long required an ethics
ng curriculum; and in 199 |,
ation Commission/Compute

So adopted the requirement

ponent of computer ethics be included in any

granting program that is nationally

force of the ACM and IEEE-cs deve
Computing Curricula 1
TEEE-CS 199 1). Thos
“social and Professional” content in any
[Link] 2001,a new joint task force of th
an updated set of guidelines (
stronger emph

the Com-
v Sciences Accreditation
that a significant com-
computer sciences degree-
accredited. Also in 1991].
loped
991, for university
e guidelines recomn

a joint task
a set of curriculum guidelines,
programs in computing (ACM and
nended the inclusion of significant
undergraduate computing curricu-
€ same two org
Computing Curricula

asis on social and ethical issues (IEEE-CS and ACM 2001).

ne in history, the social and professio

nal issues of computer

ssigned an entire area of the “CS Body of Knowledge” (sce
Editors’ Note above).

anizations developed
2001) with an even

s, iis clear that professional

organizations in computer science recognize and insist upon standards of
members,

ICT and Human Values

Today, in the early years of tk

1¢ information age, the long-

ethical implications of ICT are

term social and

still unknown. Technology ch

anges so rapidly
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 3

that new possibilities emerge before the social consequences can be fathomed
(Rogerson and Bynum 1995). New social/ethical policies for the informa-
tion age, therefore, are urgently needed to fill rapidly multiplying “policy
vacuums” (Moor 1985). But filling such vacuums is a complex social process
requiring active participation of individuals, organizations, governments —
and, ultimately, the world community.

Human relationships

Consider, for example, the impact of information and communication

technology upon human relationships. How will families or friendships be
affected by mobile phones, palm-top and lap-top computers, telecommuting
to work and school, virtual-reality conferencing, cybersex? Will the
efliciency and convenience of ICT lead to shorter work hours and more
“quality time” with friends and family? — Or will it create instead a more
hectic and breathless lifestyle which separates family and friends from each
other? Will people be isolated, each in front of a computer screen hour after
hour, or will they find new friendships and relationships in “virtual com-
munities” in cyberspace — relationships based upon interactions that could
never occur in regular space-time settings? How fulfilling and “genuine” can
such relationships be, and will they crowd out better, more satisfying face-
to-face relationships? What does all this mean for a person's self-realization
and satisfaction with life? What policies, laws, rules, practices should be put
in place? —and who should put them there?

Privacy and anonymity

One of the earliest computer ethics topics to arouse public interest in America
was privacy. For example, in the mid-1960s the American government had
already created large databases of information about private citizens (census
data, tax records, military service records, welfare records, and so on). In the
United States Congress, bills were introduced to assign a personal identifica-
tion (ID) number to every citizen and then gather all the government's data
about each citizen under the corresponding number. A public outcry about
“big-brother government” caused Congress to scrap this plan and led the US
President to appoint committees to recommend privacy legislation. In the early
1970s, major computer privacy laws were passed in the USA. Ever since then,
computer-threatened privacy has remained as a topic of public concern.
The ease and efficiency with which computers and computer networks
can be used to gather, store, search, compare, retrieve, and share personal
information make computer technology especially threatening to anyone
4 EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

who wishes to keep various kinds of “sensitive” information (for example,

medical records) out of the public domain or out of the hands of those who
are perceived as potential threats. Developments such as commercialization
and rapid growth of the Internet. the rise of the World Wide Web, increasing
“user-friendliness” and processing power of computers, and decreasing costs
of computer technology have led to new privacy issues. such as data-
mining, data-matching, recording of “click trails” on the web, and so on
(see Tavani 1999).

The variety of privacy-related issues generated by computer technology,

combined with the belief of many thinkers that privacy is vital to human
self-identity and autonomy, has led philosophers and other thinkers to re-
examine the concept of privacy itself. For example, a number of scholars
have elaborated a theory of privacy defined as “control over personal infor-
mation” (see Westin 1967, Miller 1971, Fried 1984, and Elgesem 1996). On
the other hand, philosophers Moor and Tavani have argued that control
of personal information is insufficient to establish or protect privacy, and
“the concept of privacy itself is best defined in terms of restricted access, not
control” (Tavani and Moor 2001; see also chapter 11 below). In addition.
Nissenbaum has argued that there is even a sense of privacy in public spaces, or
circumstances “other than the intimate.” An adequate definition of privacy.
therefore, must take account of “privacy in public” (Nissenbaum 1998). As
computer technology rapidly advances — creating ever new possibilities for
compiling, storing, accessing and analyzing information — philosophical
debates about the meaning of the word “privacy” will likely continue.

Questions of “anonymity and computing” are sometimes discussed in the

same context with questions of privacy, because anonymity can provide
many ofthe same desired results as privacy. For example, ifsomeone is using
the Internet to obtain medical or psychological counseling, or to discuss
sensitive topics (such as AIDS, abortion, gay rights, venereal disease, polit-
ical dissent), anonymity can afford protection similar to that of privacy.
In addition, both anonymity and privacy on the Internet can be helpful in
preserving human values such as security, mental health, self-fulfillment,
and peace of mind. Unfortunately, both privacy and anonymity also can
be exploited to facilitate unwanted and undesirable computer-aided activit-
ies such as money laundering, drug trading, terrorism, or preying upon the
vulnerable. For example, lack of database matching may have hidden infor-
mation that could have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks in the USA.

Intellectual property and ownership

In the information age, possession and control of information are keys to

wealth, power and success. Those who own and control the information
infrastructure are amongst the wealthiest and most powerful of all. And
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 5

those who own digitized intellectual property — software, databases, music,

video, films, literary and artistic works, educational resources — possess
major economic assets. But digitized information is, as Moor has so aptly
said, “greased data” — easily copied and altered, easily transferred across bor-
ders. As a result, “free” access, on the Internet, to copyrighted or patented
intellectual property has become a major social issue. What new laws, regu-
lations, rules, international agreements and practices would be fair and just,
and who should formulate or enforce them? Should information like com-
puter programs be owned at all?

A related issue concerns the creation and ownership of “multimedia”

works that mix and combine several types of digitized resource. A single
creation, for example, might make use of bits and snippets of photographs,
video clips, sound bites. graphic art, newsprint, and excerpts from various
literary and artistic works. How significant must a component of such a
work be before the user must pay copyright royalties? Must the creator of
a multimedia work identify thousands of copyright holders and pay thou-
sands of copyright fees in order to be allowed to create and disseminate his or
her work? What should the rules be and who should enforce them? How can
they be enforced at all in the unbounded realm of cyberspace?

Work

Work and the workplace are being transformed by ICT. More flexibility and
choice are now possible, such as “teleworking” at home, on the road, at any
hour or location. In addition, new kinds of job and job opportunity are being
created, such as webmasters, data-miners, cyber counselors, and so on.
But such benefits and opportunities are accompanied by risks and prob-
lems, such as unemployment for computer-replaced humans, “deskilling” of
workers who only need to push buttons, stress keeping up with high-speed
machines, repetitive motion injuries, magnetism and radiation from com-
puter hardware, surveillance of workers by monitoring software, and com-
puterized “sweat shops” that pay “slave wages.” A wide range of new laws,
regulations, rules, and practices are needed if society is to manage these
workplace developments efficiently and justly.

Social justice

As more of society's activities and opportunities enter cyberspace — business

opportunities, educational opportunities, medical services, employment,
leisure-time activities, and on and on — it will become harder and harder for
people with little or no access to information technology to share in the
benefits and opportunities of society. Someone with no “electronic identity”
& EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

may have no social identity at all. Therefore social justice (not to mention
economic prosperity) requires that society develops policies and practices
to more fully include people who, in the past, have had limited access to com-
puter resources: women, the poor, the old, persons of color, rural residents,
persons with disabilities.

Consider the example of “assistive technology” for persons with disabilit-

ies. Various hardware and software devices have been developed in recent
years to enable persons with disabilities to use information technology
easily and effectively. As a result, people who would otherwise be utterly
dependent upon others for almost everything suddenly find their lives trans-
formed into happier, productive, “near-normal” ones. Visual impairments
and blindness, hearing impairments and deafness, inability to control one’s
limbs, even near-total paralysis need no longer be major impediments
to social participation and productivity. Given these dramatic benefits of
assistive technology, as well as rapidly decreasing costs, does a just society

have an ethical obligation to provide assistive technology to its citizens with

disabilities?

Government and democracy

Information and communication technology has the potential to change

significantly many relationships between individual citizens and govern-
ments — local, regional, and national. Electronic voting and referenda, as
well as emailed messages to legislators and ministers, could give citizens
more timely input into government decisions and law-making. Optimists
point out that information technology, appropriately used, can enable better
citizen participation in democratic processes, can make government more
open and accountable, can provide easy citizen access to government informa-
tion, reports. services, plans, and proposed legislation. Pessimists, on the
other hand, worry that government officials who are regularly bombarded
with emails from angry voters might be easily swayed by short-term swings
in public mood, that hackers could disrupt or corrupt electronic election
processes, that dictatorial governments might find ways to use computer
technology to control and intimidate the population more effectively than

ever before. What policies should be put in place to take account of these
hopes and worries?

A primary goal of computer ethics

The above paragraphs identify only a small fraction of the social and ethical
issues that computing technology has begun to generate in the information
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 7

age. The vast majority of such issues are still unknown, and they will gradu-
ally come into view as powerful and flexible ICT makes new things possible.
A primary goal of computer ethics is to identify and analyze resulting “policy
vacuums” as well as to help formulate new social/ethical policies to deal
with them in just and responsible ways.

Computer Ethics: Some Historical Milestones

Some important milestones in the history of computer ethics include the

following.

1940s and 1950s

Computer ethics as a field of academic study was founded by MIT professor

Norbert Wiener during World War Two (early 1940s) while helping to
develop an anti-aircraft cannon capable of shooting down fast warplanes.
The engineering challenge of this project caused Wiener and some col-
leagues to create a new field of research that Wiener called “cybernetics” —
the science of information feedback systems. The concepts of cybernetics,
when combined with digital computers under development at that time,
led Wiener to draw some remarkably insightful ethical conclusions about
the technology that we now call ICT. He perceptively foresaw revolution-
ary social and ethical consequences. In 1948, for example, in his book
Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine,
Wiener said the following:

It has long been clear to me that the modern ultra-rapid computing machine
was in principle an ideal central nervous system to an apparatus for automatic
control; and that its input and output need not be in the form of numbers or
diagrams but might very well be, respectively, the readings of artificial sense
organs, such as photoelectric cells or thermometers, and the performance of
motors or solenoids....we are already in a position to construct artificial
machines of almost any degree of elaborateness of performance. Long before
Nagasaki and the public awareness of the atomic bomb, it had occurred to me
that we were here in the presence of another social potentiality of unheard-of
importance for good and for evil. (pp. 27-8)

In 1950 Wiener published his monumental computer ethics book, The

Human Use of Human Beings, which not only established him as the founder
of computer ethics, but — far more importantly —laid down a comprehensive
computer ethics foundation which remains today (more than halfa century
later) a powerful basis for computer ethics research and analysis. (However,
10 EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

Ethics. the first textbook — and for more than a decade, the defining textbook —
in the field. Also in the mid-1980Os there were relevant books published in
psychology and sociology. For example, Sherry Turkle wrote The Second Self
(1984), a book on the impact of computing on the human psyche: and
Judith Perrolle produced Computers and Social Change: Information, Property
and Power (1987), asociological approach to computing and human values.

During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the field of computer
ethics grew rapidly. Conferences, university courses, textbooks, research
centers, journals, and research professorships were created. During this
period, practical concern related to computer ethics continued to rise.
Organizations regularly monitored the use and abuse of ICT. For example,
since 1983 incidents of ICT abuse within the UK have been reported every
three years by the Audit Commission. The reports provide evidence of the
level of ICT abuse, the reasons for its occurrence, and the risks that organiza-
tions need to address. By the mid-1990s, the present editors were noting

a “second generation” of computer ethics developments (Rogerson and

Bynum 1996).

Overview of this Book

In this book, the term “computer ethics” is used very broadly to include areas
of study sometimes referred to as “information ethics,” “ICT ethics,” “cyber-
ethics,” and “global information ethics.”

The book is divided into four parts, each of which includes (1) an editors’
introduction to provide background and context, (2) relevant essays by
computer ethics thinkers, (3) a specific case to consider and analyze, (4) a set
of helpful study questions, and (5) a short list of additional readings and web
resources to deepen one’s knowledge of the topic. (Supplementary materials
can also be found on the web sites of the RCCS ([Link] or
[Link]) and the CCSR ([Link]).)

Part I, “What Is Computer Ethics?,” discusses the nature of computer

ethics as a field of study. In chapter 1, James H. Moor presents his influential
account of the nature, goals, and methods of computer ethics. In chapter 2,
Walter Maner defends his view that ICT creates unique ethical problems
that would not have occurred without it. Part I concludes with a discussion
and example analysis by Terrell Ward Bynum of case analysis in computer
ethics.

Part II, “Professional Responsibility,” examines computer ethics from

the point of view of ICT professionals. In chapter 4, Chuck Huff discusses
and illustrates the fact that designers of computer systems often have a
larger social and ethical impact than they realize or intend. In chapter 5,
Donald Gotterbarn argues that ICT professionals have specific duties and
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 11

responsibilities in light of their special knowledge and powerful impacts

upon the world. Should codes of ethics and standards of good practice guide
computer professionals in their judgments and actions? — and, ifso, what are
the appropriate codes and standards? What can developers of information
systems do to ensure that ethical considerations are properly addressed? In
the concluding chapter of Part I. Simon Rogerson offers a specific method
to integrate ethical considerations into software project management.

Part II, “Codes of Ethics,” discusses the various roles and functions of
ethical codes for ICT professionals. It also provides six example codes of
ethics from professional organizations in America, the United Kingdom.
and Australia. In chapter 7, N. Ben Fairweather examines the short-
comings of a popular list of four “ethical issues” with the acronym PAPA
(privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility) (see Mason 1986), and
he warns about the dangers of the mistaken belief that a code of ethics
can provide a complete ethical algorithm or checklist. In chapter 8,
Donald Gotterbarn examines various objections to the licensing of com-
puter professionals, explains the ethical advantages of such licensing.
and offers a model licensing plan that overcomes typical objections to
licensing.

Part IV, “Sample Topics in Computer Ethics,” explores four computer

ethics issues that have frequently been in the news — computer security,
privacy, ownership of intellectual property, and globalization. These topics
illustrate the kinds of issue and method of analysis that thinkers in computer
ethics have addressed in recent years:

“Computer Security” examines, in chapters by Peter G. Neumann and

Eugene H. Spafford, a variety of issues associated with computer security
and crime, including, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, hacking
and cracking, and important gaps between ideal and actual computer
system security.

“Privacy and Computing” examines, in chapters by James H. Moor and

Elizabeth France, the reasons why ICT has generated so many privacy-
related issues, various definitions of privacy, the role and importance of
privacy in society, the relation of privacy to human values, and important
differences between the American and European ways of approaching
computer privacy questions.

“Computing and Intellectual Property,” in chapters by Deborah G.

Johnson and Richard Stallman, relates traditional theories of ownership
to major social controversies surrounding digitized intellectual properties,
copyrights, patents, and the relationship between ethics and the law.
Included is a discussion of “free software” and the roots of the “open source”
movement.

“Global Information Ethics,” in chapters by Krystyna Gorniak-

Kocikowska and John Weckert, examines various ethical issues that arise
12 Epitors’ INTRODUCTION

because of the global reach of the Internet. Be

national borders and crosses cultural bound
apply. and how can cultur
Should information available on the Inte
should determine what is acceptable?
cerned about offending someone in
ethics be created to resolv

cause the Internet ignores

aries, whose laws and values
al clashes and misunderstandings be resolved?
tet be censored, and if so who
Should people in one culture be con-

another culture? Shoulda new “global”

€ such issues?

References

ACM and TEEE-CS (1991). Computing Curricula 19

[Link]/education/cc199 ]/

Elgesem, D. (1996). “Privacy, Respect for P

Philosophical Perspectives on Computer:
New York Press,

Fried, C. (1984). “Privacy,” In F, D. Schoe

Privacy. Cambridge University Press.

TEEE-CS and ACM (2001)

[Link]/sigcse/cc2001/

Johnson, D. G. (1985
2001).

Maner, W. (1980). Starter Kit in

91. Available at [Link]

ersons, and Risk.” In C. Ess (ed.),

-Mediated Communication. State | Iniversity of
man (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of

- Computing Curricula 2001. Available at [Link]

). Computer Ethics. Prentice-Hall (2nd edn 1994: 3rd edn

Computer Ethies, Helvetia Press (published in

cooperation with the National Information and Resource Center for Teaching
Philosophy). (Originally self-published by Manerin 19 78.)

Mason, R. O. (1986). “Four Ethical Issues of the Informati

10/1:5-12,

Miller, A. R. (19 71). The Assault on Privacy: Computers, Data Banks, and Dossiers.
University of M ichigan Press.
Moor, J. H. (1985). “What Is Computer Ethics?” In
Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 266-75, (
Metaphilosophy.)

Nissenbaum, H. (1998). “Pr

Privacy in Public”. Law

Parker, D, (1968). “Rules

ACM, 11:198-201.

Parker, D. (1979). Ethical Conflicts in Computer Science

Parker, D., Swope, S., and Baker, B. N. (1990). Ethi

Computer Science, Technology and Business. QED Info

Perrolle, J. A. (1987). Computers and Social Change: ly

Wadsworth.

Rogerson, S. and Bynum, TT. W. (1995), “Cybers

Higher Education Supplen;

on Age.” MIS Quarterly,

T. W. Bynum (ed.), Computers and

Published as the October 1985 issue of

otecting Privacy in an Inform

and Philosophy, 17: 559-96.
of Ethics in Information P

ation Age: The Problem of

rocessing.” Communications ofthe

and Technology. AFIPS Press.

cal Conflicts in Information and

rmation Sciences.

Yormation, Property, and Power,

pace: The Ethical Frontier,” Times

tent, The Times, June 9,

Rogerson, [Link], T. w.
The Future of Information
Systems, April. Available at
discipline/ie_sec_gen.html

Systems Conference, UK Ac

ademy for Information

[Link]

‘[Link]/resources/general/
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 13

Tavani, H.'T. (1999). “Informational Privacy, Data Mining and the Internet.” Ethics
and Information Technology, 1: 137-45.

Tavani, H. T. and Moor, J. H. (2001). “Privacy Protection, Control of Information,

and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies.” In R. A. Spinello and H. T. Tavani (eds.),
Readings in CyberEthics. Jones and Bartlett, pp. 378—9 1.

Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. Simon and
Schuster.

Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to

Calculation. Freeman.

Westin, A. R. (1967), Privacy and Freedom, Atheneum,

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the
Machine. Technology Press.

Wiener, N. (1950/1954). The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society.
Houghton Mifflin, 1950 (2nd rev. edn, Doubleday Anchor, 1954).
PART |

What is Computer Ethics?

Itis not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that
your work may increase man’s blessings. Concern for man himself and his fate
must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors.

Albert Einstein
Editors’ Introduction

In the 1940s and early 1950s, the field of study that is now called “computer
ethics” was given a solid foundation by Professor Norbert Wiener of MIT.
Unhappily, Professor Wiener’s works in computer ethics were essentially
ignored for decades by other thinkers. In the 1970s and 1980s computer
ethics was recreated and redefined by thinkers who did not realize that
Wiener had already done so much work in the field. Today, more than 50
years after Wiener created computer ethics, some thinkers are still attempt-
ing to define the nature and boundaries of the subject. Let us briefly consider
five different definitions that have been developed since the 1970s.

Maner’s Definition

The name “computer ethics” was not commonly used until the mid-1970s
when Walter Maner began to use it. He defined this field of study as one
that examines “ethical problems aggravated, transformed or created by
computer technology.” Some old ethical problems, he said, were made
worse by computers, while others came into existence because of computer
technology. He suggested that we should use traditional ethical theories
of philosophers, such as the utilitarian ethics of the English philosophers
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, or the rationalist ethics of the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Johnson's Definition

In her book, Computer Ethics (1985), Deborah Johnson said that computer
ethics studies the way in which computers “pose new versions of standard
moral problems and moral dilemmas, exacerbating the old problems, and
forcing us to apply ordinary moral norms in uncharted realms.” Like Maner
18 WHAT IS COMPUTER ETHICS?

before her, Johnson adopted the “applied philosophy” approach of using

procedures and concepts from utilitarianism and Kantianism. But, unlike
Maner., she did not believe that computers create wholly new moral prob-
lems. Rather, she thought that computers gave a “new twist” to ethical
questions that were already well known.

Moor’s Definition

In his influential article “What Is Computer Ethics?” (1985), James Moor

provided a definition of computer ethics that is much broader and more
wide-ranging than those of Maner or Johnson. It is independent of any
specific philosopher's theory: and it is compatible with a wide variety of
approaches to ethical problem-solving. Since 1985. Moor’s definition has
been the most influential one. He defined computer ethics as a field con-

cerned with “policy vacuums” and “conceptual muddles” regarding the

social and ethical use of information technology:

A typical problem in Computer Ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum

about how computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with
new capabilities and these in turn give us new choices for action. Often, either
no policies for conduct in these situations exist or existing policies seem
inadequate. A central task of Computer Ethics is to determine what we
should do in such cases, that is, formulate policies to guide our actions. .
One difficulty is that along with a policy vacuum there is often a conceptual
vacuum. Although a problem in Computer Ethics may seem clear initially, a
little reflection reveals a conceptual muddle. What is needed in such cases is
an analysis that provides a coherent conceptual framework within which to
formulate a policy for action. (Moor 1985, p. 266)

Moor said that computer technology is genuinely revolutionary because it is

“logically malleable”:

Computers are logically malleable in that they can be shaped and molded to
do any activity that can be characterized in terms of inputs, outputs and con-
necting logical operations. . . . Because logic applies everywhere, the potential
applications of computer technology appear limitless. The computer is the
nearest thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computers are
largely the limits of our own creativity. (Ibid.)

According to Moor, the computer revolution will occur in two stages.

The first stage is that of “technological introduction” in which computer
technology is developed and refined. This already occurred during the
first 40 years after the Second World War. The second stage — one that the
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 19

industrialized world has only recently entered —is that of “technological per-
meation” in which technology gets integrated into everyday human activit-
ies and into social institutions, changing the very meaning of fundamental
concepts, such as “money,” “education,” “work,” and “fair elections.”

Moor’s way of defining computer ethics is very powerful and suggestive. It

is broad enough to be compatible with a wide range of philosophical theories
and methodologies, and it is rooted in a perceptive understanding of how
technological revolutions proceed.

Bynum’s Definition

In 1989 ‘Terrell Ward Bynum developed another broad definition of com-

puter ethics following a suggestion in Moor’s 1985 paper. According to this
view, computer ethics identifies and analyzes the impacts of information technology
on such social and human values as health, wealth, work, opportunity, freedom,
democracy, knowledge, privacy, security, self-fulfillment, etc. This very broad
view
ofcomputer ethics employs applied ethics, sociology of computing, technology
assessment, computer law, and related fields. It employs concepts, theories,
and methodologies from these and other relevant disciplines. This conception
of computer ethics is motivated by the belief that — eventually — information
technology will profoundly affect everything that human beings hold dear.

Gotterbarn’s Definition

In the 1990s, Donald Gotterbarn became a strong advocate for a different

approach to computer ethics. From his perspective, computer ethics should
be viewed as a branch of professional ethics, concerned primarily with stand-
ards of good practice and codes of conduct for computing professionals:

There is little attention paid to the domain of professional ethics — the values
that guide the day-to-day activities of computing professionals in their role
as professionals. By computing professional I mean anyone involved in the
design and development of computer artifacts. . . . The ethical decisions made
during the development of these artifacts have a direct relationship to many
of the issues discussed under the broader concept of computer ethics.
(Gotterbarn 1991, p. 26)

With this “professional ethics” approach to computer ethics, Gotterbarn

co-authored the 1992 version of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct and led a team of scholars in the development of the 1999 ACM/
IEEE Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. (Both of
these codes of ethics are included in this book in Part III.)
20 WHAT IS COMPUTER ETHICS?

Each of these definitions of computer ethics has influenced this textbook to

some extent. Part I makes special use of the ideas of Moor and Maner: later
parts of the book bring in other ideas as well.

References

Gotterbarn, D. (1991). “Computer Ethics: Responsibility Regained.” National Forum:

The Phi Beta Kappa Journal, 71: 26-31.

Johnson, D. G. (1985). Computer Ethics. Prentice-Hall (2nd edn 1994; 3rd edn
2001).

Maner, W. (1980). Starter Kit in Computer Ethics. Helvetia Press (published in

cooperation with the National Information and Resource Center for Teaching
Philosophy). (Originally self-published by Maner in 1978.)

Moor, J. H. (1985). “What Is Computer Ethics?” In T. W. Bynum (ed.), Computers

and Ethics. Blackwell, pp. 266-75. (Published as the October 1985 issue of
Metaphilosophy.)