IT and Ethics: erinevus redaktsioonide vahel

Allikas: KakuWiki
Mine navigeerimisribaleMine otsikasti
(Uus lehekülg: '__NOTOC__ === Ain't good and bad the same as in times of old? === Ethic in its classic sense describes the rules and standards that regulate the behaviour of an individual towa...')
 
 
(ei näidata sama kasutaja 23 vahepealset redaktsiooni)
5. rida: 5. rida:
Ethic in its classic sense describes the rules and standards that regulate the behaviour of an individual towards others. On the one hand, most 'golden rules' do apply in the age of Internet as well. On the other hand, it has brought along a row of new ethical questions, some of which have made it necessary to reconsider old ideas (everything about 'intellectual property' is a good example). Let us imagine meeting Socrates or any other classical sage and asking questions from him - he would answer those dealing with his known world easily. But what about his opinion about things like spam, trolling or 'letters from a Nigerian prince'?
Ethic in its classic sense describes the rules and standards that regulate the behaviour of an individual towards others. On the one hand, most 'golden rules' do apply in the age of Internet as well. On the other hand, it has brought along a row of new ethical questions, some of which have made it necessary to reconsider old ideas (everything about 'intellectual property' is a good example). Let us imagine meeting Socrates or any other classical sage and asking questions from him - he would answer those dealing with his known world easily. But what about his opinion about things like spam, trolling or 'letters from a Nigerian prince'?


Or, is it another tempest in a teapot? Not quite: as it has been said before, Internet is, above all, people. It is a huge community where people physically by thousands of miles apart are able to directly influence each other. And as seen before, without a certain critical mass of ethic, we will get a cyberdump instead of cyberspace.


The 'Death by Dung' is most likely if the disregard toward ethic would prevail.  Just as there are sociopathic businesspeople and politicians in real life who would damage the environment in the name of personal profit, similar 'lower life forms' do exist online as well.


Või on see taas üks torm veeklaasis...? Vist mitte, kuna Internet on (nagu oleme korduvalt maininud) mitte üksnes kastid ja kaablid, vaid ka inimesed. See on ilmselt suurim kogukond, kus füüsiliselt teineteisest tuhandeid kilomeetreid eemal elavad inimesed saavad ometi otseselt üksteist mõjutada. Ja nagu oleme juba korduvalt näinud: ilma teatava "kriitilise eetikamassita" saame küberruumi asemel lollidemaa.


"Interneti sitasurm" on kõige tõenäolisem siis, kui ebaeetilisus võimust võtab. Paralleel tavaeluga: nii nagu mõned sotsiopaatidest ärimehed ja poliitikud võivad isikliku kasu nimel teha keskkonnale suurt kahju, nii võivad seda teha ka võrgus leiduvad "alamad eluvormid" (kasutades klassikalist häkkeriterminit) - spämmerid, petised ja muud sedasorti tegelased.
=== Different points of view ===


Herman Tavani in his ''Ethics and Technology'' talks about ''cyberethics'', as the terms of ''computer ethics'' and even ''internet ethics'' would not show enough the human(s) behind the technology. According to him, the cyberethics can have different points of view, for instance
* '''IT''' - ethical challenges stemming from the adoption of new technologies.
* '''Philosophy''' - putting the tech-related ethical questions to a larger, 'Big Picture' context.
* '''Social and behavioural sciences''' - measuring the impact of new technologies to social institutions and various groups in the society.
* '''Information sciences''' - ethical problems related to legal topics (e.g. copyright etc), censorship and freedom of speech online.


=== Lai valdkond ===


Herman Tavani räägib enda raamatus "Ethics and Technology"  "kübereetikast" (''cyberethics''), kuna jõuab samale järeldusele kui eespooltoodu - "arvutieetika" ja isegi "internetieetika" ei too piisavalt välja inimest tehnoloogia taga. Tavani järgi võib kübereetikat vaadelda eri vaatenurkadest, näiteks
Tavani also proposes three different approaches:
* '''IT''' - eetilised väljakutsed, mis tulenevad uue tehnoloogia kasutuselevõtust
* '''filosoofia''' - tehnoloogiaga seotud eetikaküsimuste nägemine suuremas, "suure pildi" kontekstis
* '''ühiskonna- ja käitumisteadused''' - uute tehnoloogiate mõju hindamine ühiskondlikele institutsioonidele ja eri ühiskonnagruppidele
* '''infoteadused''' - probleemid senise "intellektuaalomandi" käsitlusega, aga ka tsensuuri ja sõnavabaduse teemad küberruumis.


Tavani sõnastab ka kolm võimalikku lähenemist:
* '''Professional ethics''' - predominantly the view of computer, natural and information sciences, the issues include professionalism, responsibilities, risks, safety and reliability, codes of conduct etc.
* '''Philosophical ethics''' - the philosophical and legal view on issues like privacy, anonymity, copyright, freedom of speech etc.
* '''Descriptive ethics''' - the view of social sciences on e.g. the impact of technology on various institutions (government, education etc) and social groups (e.g. by sex/gender, age, ethnicity etc).


* '''kutse-eetika''' - peamiselt arvuti-, tehnika- ja infoteaduste vaade küsimustele nagu professionaalsus, erialane vastutus, riskid, ohutus ja töökindlus, erinevad käitumiskoodeksid jne
* '''filosoofiline eetika''' - filosoofiline ja juriidiline vaade: privaatsus, anonüümsus, autoriõigused, sõnavabadus jne
* '''kirjeldav eetika''' - sotsiaalteaduste vaade: tehnoloogia mõju ühiskonna institutsioonidele (riik, haridussfäär jne) ja erinevatele ühiskonnagruppidele (soo, vanuse, rahvuse jne järgi).


=== Some ethical theories ===


=== Mõned eri lähenemised eetikale ===
Michael J. Quinn in his ''Ethics for the Information Age'' has listed different ethical theories that might be used in an information society:


Michael J. Quinn mainib oma raamatus "Ethics for the Information Age" erinevaid eetilisi käsitlusi, mida infoühiskond võib kasutada:
* '''Subjective Relativism''' (Moral Relativism) - while Relativism denies the existence of universal morality, Subjective Relativism proposes that each individual has his/her own Right and Wrong (the maxim "What’s right for you may not be right for me").
* '''Cultural Relativism''' - this theory sees the Right and Wrong in the context of specific cultures, capable of changing both in time (different eras) and space (different locations).
* '''Divine Command Theory''' - as the ethical cornerstone of three large 'book religions' (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), this theory bases the Right and Wrong on the divine will and commands conveyed in the Scriptures.
* '''Ethical Egoism''' - this theory is perhaps best seen in the novels by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand Ayn Rand]. According to it, the long-term personal benefit should be the sole criterion for the Right; barter is seen as a foundational principle in human relationships - while Ethical Egoism does not rule out helping others, it is only considered reasonable in case of mutual benefit.
* '''Kantianism''' - the theory stands on the works of the German philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant], who tried to formulate universal ethics setting an universal code of conduct. His main thesis known as the Categorícal Imperative has two formulations:
*# the principle of autonomy (First Formulation): Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.
*# the principle of motives (Second Formulation): Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end.
* '''Act Utilitarism''' (also Direct Utilitarism) - the theory by the English philosophers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham Jeremy Bentham] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill John Stuart Mill] has utility as a central tenet (the greatest happiness principle: An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties. Note that according to this principle, it is possible to act right for wrong reasons, and vice versa.
* '''Rule Utilitarism''' (also Indirect Utilitarism) - this theory applies utility as a measuring stick to rules rather than directly to actions; the act is deemed right if the rule mandating it is right. According to the theory, the right rules are the ones that, when used as moral code, bring more happiness (to all parties combined) than other rules. The approach is somewhat similar to Kant's, but while Kant stresses motives, this theory considers the actual results.
* The '''Social Contract Theory''' was first formulated by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes Thomas Hobbes] in his book ''Leviathan'' and later added to by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_LockeJohn Locke] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau]. According to it, the society should strive to develop a set of rules that make sense to everyone (making people follow them voluntarily). For instance, driving on the right (or in some places, left) could be a common example - drivers keep to the right not for fearing the police but to avoid confusion and possible crashes.
* The '''Rawls' Theory of Justice''' by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls John Rawls] stems from two assumptions:
*# Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties.
*# Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume (e.g. by obtaining necessary education); and second, they are "to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle; an example could be gradual taxation).
* The '''Virtue Ethics''' can be traced back to ancient Greece (perhaps most notably, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle Aristotle]). According to it, a right action is an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in the same circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who possesses and lives out the virtues. The virtues are those character traits human beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy. Aristotle also distinguishes between the intellectual and moral virtues, considering the latter more important (as they are innate, personal traits rather than learned behaviour).


* '''Subjektiivne relativism''' (moraalirelativism) - kui relativism üldiselt eitab universaalsete moraalinormide olemasolu, siis subjektiivne relativism väidab, et igal üksikisikul on omaenda "õige ja vale".
=== Main fields of discussion ===
* '''Kultuurirelativism''' - selle arusaama järgi peegeldavad "õige" ja "vale" ühiskonna moraalseid tõekspidamisi, mis aga võivad muutuda nii ajas (eri ajastud) kui ruumis (eri asukohad).
* '''Jumaliku käsu teooria''' - kolme suure raamatureligiooni (judaism, kristlus ja islam) teooriana põhineb "õige" ja "vale" Jumala tahtel ja käsul, mis on pühakirja vormis edasi antud.
* '''Eetiline egoism''' - üheks ehedamaks näiteks on [[w:en:Ayn rand]] romaanid. Selle järgi on pikaajaline isiklik kasu "õige" ainsaks kriteeriumiks. Ühe inimsuhete põhiprintsiibina nähakse vahetuskaupa - nii ei välista eetiline egoism ka teiste aitamist, aga seda peetakse arukaks vaid mõlemapoolse kasu korral.
* '''Kantiaanlus''' - selle aluseks on saksa filosoof [[w:en:Immanuel Kant]], kes püüdis sõnastada üldist eetikamudelit, mis määraks üleüldise käitumiskoodeksi. Kanti kategooriline imperatiiv on olemas kahes vormis:
*# autonoomia printsiip - tegutse nii, et kohtled iga ratsionaalse olendi tahet kui universaalse seaduse andjat.
*# eesmärkide printsiip - tegutsen nii, et sa kohtleksid iseend ning teisi inimesi mitte ainult vahendina, vaid ühtlasi ka kui eesmärki.
* '''Teoutilitarism ehk otsene utilitarism''' - inglise filosoofide [[w:en:Jeremy Bentham]] and [[w:en:John Stuart Mill]] teooria lähtub kasulikkuse (ehk maksimaalse õnne) põhimõttest: tegu on õige siis, kui selle tagajärjeks on kõigi osapoolte jaoks vähemalt niisama palju hüvet kui mis tahes mõeldaval alternatiivil (seega peaksime sooritama teo, mis toob summaarselt kõige rohkem kasu). Tähelepanuks: selle arusaama järgi võib head teha ka halbadel motiividel ja vastupidi.
* '''Reegliutilitarism ehk kaudne utilitarism''' -  siin rakendatakse kasulikkuse põhimõtet mitte tegudele, vaid reeglitele: teo õigsust selle reegli õigsuse kaudu, mida see tegu järgib. Õiged moraalireeglid on aga need, mille võtmine moraalikoodeksisse toob (kõigile osapooltele summaarselt) rohkem kasu kui teiste võimalike reeglite võtmine. See sarnaneb mõneti Kanti arusaamaga, ent erinevalt Kantist on suurem rõhuasetus teo tulemusel, Kantil aga teo motiividel.
* '''Ühiskondliku leppe teooria''' sõnastas esmalt [[w:en:Thomas Hobbes]] teoses "Leviaatan" ja seda täiendasid hiljem [[w:en:John Locke]] ja [[w:en:Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]. Selle teooria järgi tuleks sõnastada selline hulk reegleid, mis tunduvad arukad kõigile osapooltele (nii järgitakse neid vabatahtlikult). Näiteks autoga sõitmine paremal (või mõnel maal vasakul) pool teed on üks selline põhimõte - kõik sõidavad õigel pool mitte hirmust politsei ees, vaid vältimaks segadust ja võimalikku avariid.
* '''[[w:en:John Rawls]] õigluse teooria''' lähtub kahest eeldusest:
*# Igaühele antakse täielik ja küllaldane hulk õigusi ja vabadusi, kuid ta peab neid tunnustama ka teiste juures.
*# Igasugune ebavõrdsus peab alluma kahele tingimusele: a) vastavad ühiskondlikud positsioonid peavad olema mõistlikul viisil kättesaadavad kõigile (näiteks hariduse omandamise teel) ja b) nad peavad aitama erisusi vähendada, andes eelise ühiskonna nõrgematele liikmetele (hea näide on astmeline tulumaks).


The previous theories have become the most contested in three large technology-related fields: rewarding creativity (e.g. copyright and other similar issues), privacy, and censorship. While the latter two have acquired new dimensions during the IT era, the first one faces perhaps the most radical changes of the three. Additionally, the digital gap (where some parts of the world are online and others are not, leaving the latter ones disadvantaged), information security, and social media (journalism is not limited to professional journalists anymore) all pose new ethical challenges.


=== Peamised probleemivaldkonnad ===
There are many ethical questions which are totally new. A good example would be domain squatting online - someone would buy a lot of domains in the hopes of someone needing some of them later, or snatch one away before some interested party can act (in both cases, potential profit is the main motive). The later case is already better regulated today, allowing 'returning' the squatted domain to the 'justified party' (e.g. someone registering drinkcoke.ee would likely have to hand it over to the Coca-Cola corporation soon enough). There are still risks of both identity theft and extortion.


Senised eetikateooriad on sattunud kõige rohkemate probleemide otsa kolme suure tehnoloogiaga seotud valdkonna käsitlemisel: loovuse ees tasumine (parim näide on kogu autoriõiguste temaatika), privaatsus ning tsensuur. Kui kahele viimasele on IT-ajastul lisandunud rida uusi aspekte, siis esimene seisab silmitsi võib-olla kõige radikaalsemata muutustega. Lisaks on suured küsimused olemas ka digitaalse lõhe (ehk olukord, kus osa maailmast on "kaabli otsas", osa aga mitte ning viimased jäävad seeläbi ka muus ebasoodsamasse seisu), andmeturbe jms eetika ning kindlasti on uue eetilise mõõtme toonud kaasa ka sotsiaalmeedia (enam ei ole ajakirjandus vaid kutseliste reporterite ja õppinud ajakirjanike pärusmaa).
=== Half empty, or half full? ===


Lisaks on tekkinud hulk täiesti uusi eetilisi küsimusi. Heaks näiteks on võrgudomeenide hõivamine (''domain squatting''') - ostetakse domeene kokku hulgi (lootes, et keegi hiljem sealt midagi vajab ja selle saab kasuga maha müüa) või üritatakse näpata domeen ära mõne konkreetse osapoole eest (jällegi lootes selle hiljem kallilt maha müüa). Teisel juhul reageerivad tänased seadused juba üsna hästi ning pahatahtlikult registreeritud domeen läheb "õigustatud" omanikule (näiteks võtab Coca-Cola tõenäoliselt ära kokakoola.ee). Siiski on siin olemas nii identiteedivarguse kui väiksemat sorti väljapressimise risk.


An example of the ambiguity of ethical considerations would be the list of online dangers formulated by Attila Krajci in 2000 (they are included in the book by Pinter; see the references below) where each one can also be added a positive point of view:
* Trust: "You never know who is on the other side" vs "you can have a ''carte blanche'', ridding you of earlier loads".
* Authenticity: "What you find cannot be trusted" vs "you can look at the information itself rather than external authority".
* Sense of reality: "Things go unreal if you are online too much" vs "sometimes, the cyberspace is what someone needs in order to open up".
* Alienation: "net addicts get alienated from others" vs "sometimes a way to escape is necessary".
* Identity: "you can be whoever you want until you do not know anymore who you are" vs "you can be whoever you want and stay yourself".
* Aggression: "computer games make you aggressive" vs "games can teach very different things".
* Extremes: "Internet has porn, pedophiles and brainwashers" vs "sometimes one needs to see wrong to know right".
* Communication: "Internet does not allow using the whole spectrum of communication" vs "Internet commmunication adds new ways of communication, sometimes by seemingly truncating them".
* Noise: "you get lost in the mass of information" vs "there will be totally new ways to extract what you need".


=== Pooltühi või pooltäis? ===
Thus, it is not possible to say that one is right and the other is not. A similar approach is also used by Stephen Northcutt in his ''IT Ethics Handbook'', describing a large number of ethical dilemmas and providing two radically different answers from different viewpoints.


Ühe hea näitena eetilise hinnangu mitmetivõetavuse kohta võib tuua 2000. aastast, mil ungarlane Attila Krajci sõnastas rea internetiohte (nendest on lähemalt räägitud Pinteri infoühiskonna õpikus). Kõigile neile aga annab leida positiivse vaate. Näiteks
The book by Pinter also describes two approaches to IT - the technophiliac and technophobic views. The former looks at Internet as a kind of ''Cyber-Athens'' (in the classic, ancient sense) - the ''agora'' or meetup is even more effective in the cyberspace, promoting direct democracy and free society. The latter view, on the contrary, suggests that the result will be an Orwellian surveillance society with the Big Brother watching everywhere  and should technology become advanced enough, the machines may come to the question about the necessity of humans ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5foZIKuEWQ "You're a plague and we are the cure"]).
* Usaldatavus: “sa ei tea iial, kes teisel pool on”, AGA “sa saad suhelda valge lehena, ilma varasema taagata”
* Autentsus: “netis leiduv ei pruugi olla usaldusväärne”, AGA “sa saad lähtuda infost, mitte välisest autoriteedist”
* Reaalsuskadu: “liiga kaua netis istudes kaob reaalsustaju”, AGA “vahel aitab just kübermaailm inimesel avaneda”
* Võõrandumine: “netisõltlased võõrduvad teistest inimestest”, AGA “vahel on see põgenemistee”
* Identiteedikadu: “sa võid olla kes iganes, kuni sa ise enam ei tea, kes sa oled”, AGA “sa võid mängida keda iganes ja jääda iseendaks”
* Agressioon: “arvutimängud muudavad vägivaldseks”, AGA “mängud võivad õpetada väga erinevaid asju”
* Äärmused: “Internetis on pornograafia, pedofiilid ja ajupesijad”, AGA “vahel peab valet nägema, et tõde ära tunda”
* Vaesestuv suhtlus: “Internet ei võimalda kogu suhtlusspektri kasutamist”, AGA “Internetisuhtlus lisab uusi suhtlusvõimalusi, ka näiliselt teatud kanaleid ära lõigates”
* Infoudu: “inimene eksib tohutusse infomassi ära”, AGA “tekivad täiesti uued võimalused infouputusest vajaliku leidmiseks”


Otseselt ei saa niisiis öelda, et ühel on õigus ja teisel mitte. Sama lähenemist kasutab ka Stephen Northcutt enda "IT eetika käsiraamatus", kirjeldades suurt hulka erinevaid eetilisi dilemmasid ning andes neile kaks täiesti eri vaatenurkadest vastust.
The middle way between the two extremes have been sought for a long time. An interesting initiative was the [http://www.technorealism.org Technorealism] movement starting with an eponymous manifesto in 1998. While their ideas had varying weight (see a cricical comment at http://www.zpub.com/aaa/techreal.html) and the movement predated the social media era, a similar balancing force would still be needed in today's world.


Pinteri raamatus on kirjeldatud ka kaht lähenemist infotehnoloogiale - tehnofiilset ja tehnofoobset. Esimene näeb Internetis omalaadset "küber-Ateenat" (klassikalises antiikses mõttes) - vanakreeka agoraa ehk rahvakogunemise saab korraldada veel efektiivsemalt küberruumis, see aga viib edasi otsedemokraatiat ja vaba ühiskonda. Teine aga usub, et tulemuseks on paratamatult Orwelli "1984" sarnane jälgimisühiskond, kus kõikjal passib Suur Vend - ning kui tehnoloogia peaks piisavalt arenema, võib masinatel tekkida küsimus inimkonna otstarbekusest ("Mr Anderson - te olete viirus!").
=== Tavani's phases of cyberethics ===


Keskteed nende kahe äärmuse vahel on otsitud sageli, üheks huvitavaks algatuseks oli [http://www.technorealism.org "tehnorealismi" liikumine], mis sai alguse 1998. aastal samanimelisest manifestist. Nende ideed olid erineva kaaluga (üks kommentaar ja kriitika: http://www.zpub.com/aaa/techreal.html), pealegi pärines liikumine "ajast enne Facebooki" (laiemas mõttes), kuid sellist tasakaalustavat jõudu oleks ka tänasesse maailma tarvis.
The phases of cyberethics formulated by Herman Tavani concur in part with the generations of computing in IT history. To illustrate the difference from today, he also uses a legendary quote attributed to the then-CEO of IBM, Thomas J. Watson: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" (there are alternate versions with 4 or 6).


==== Phase I ====


=== Kübereetika arengu faasid Tavani järgi ===
1950s and 1960s - standalone (non-networked) mainframes. The first attempts on artificial intelligence would bring along the first ethical questions in IT:
* Can machines think? If yes, should we build a thinking machine?
* If machines can be intelligent, then what it means to be human?


Herman Tavani sõnastatud kübereetika faasid langevad osaliselt kokku arvutustehnika põlvkondadega IT ajaloos. 1940. aastatesse paigutatud lähtekohta ja tollase olukorra suurt erinevust tänapäevast illustreerib Tavani legendaarse, vahel IBM-i peadirektorile Thomas J. Watsonile omistatud lausega "Maailm vajab kõige enam nelja arvutit" (mõnes versioonis mainitakse viit või kuut).
Also privacy is mentioned early on, mostly in the context of the Big Brother and large databases.


==== 1. faas ====
==== Phase II ====


1950.-60. aastad - eraldiseisvad (ilma võrguta) suurarvutid. Esimesed katsetused tehisintellekti vallas viivad esimeste eetiliste küsimusteni:
1970s and 1980s - the rise of business sector, first networks (local and wide area networks). The main ethical questions include
* Kas masinad suudavad mõelda? Kui jah, kas peaksime ehitama mõtleva masina?
* personal privacy (adding the network and business aspects to the former phase).
* Kui masinad võivad olla intelligentsed, siis mida tähendab olla inimene?
* rise of 'intellectual property' - the problems related to unauthorized copying.
* beginning of computer crime, at first in the form of pranks and intrusion (unlawful entry).


Juba sellest ajast tuleb esile ka privaatsuse küsimus - eeskätt Suure Venna ja suurte andmebaaside näol.
==== Phase III ====


==== 2. faas ====
Since around 1990 - the Web era. Additional issues include
* freedom of speech
* anonymity
* legislation
* trust
* public vs private information


1970.-80. aastad - ärisektori tõus, võrkude leviku algus (koht- ja laivõrgud). Peamised eetilised küsimused:
==== Phase IV ====
* isiku privaatsus (nagu eelmises faasis, kuid lisanduvad võrgu- ja äriaspekt).
* esile kerkib "intellektuaalomand" ehk probleemid ebaseadusliku paljundamisega.
* alguse saab arvutikuritegevus - esmalt küberhuligaansuste (segamine, "käkikeeramine") ja loata ringikolamise vormis.


==== 3. faas ====
Near future -  merging technologies, ubiquitous computing, smart objects and things, chips, bioinformatics, probably nanocomputing.


Alates 1990. aastast tänaseni - veebiajastu. Lisanduvad:
=== Moral transparency of technology ===
* sõnavabadus
* anonüümsus
* seadusandlus
* usaldus
* avalik ''versus'' erainfo


==== 4. faas ====
Cyberethics is often descriptive (non-normative; avoids judgement) rather than normative (judges the act or situation  as right or wrong). However, the normative approach has its place, and in some cases, the normativity depends on the technology in question:
* '''Transparent''' - everything is clear, the users understand both the technology (at least on the base level) and related moral choices (e.g. phone network and the ethics of surveillance).
* '''Non-transparent with known features''' - the users understand the main principles but may not realize the related moral choices (e.g. Google).
* '''Non-transparent with unknown features''' - the users do not understand neither principles (''black box'') nor any moral factors (e.g. Internet of Things).


Lähitulevik - tehnoloogiate koondumine, lausandmetöötlus, arukad esemed ja objektid, kiibid, bioinformaatika, ilmselt ka nanoarvutid.
=== Should ethics be codified? ===


Some consider it a bureaucratic waste of time, but the internal rules of a company, security policy and various other documents are largely done the same way. Besides having a legal status, such documents would help finding suitable people (someone disagreeing with the code of conduct from day one is likely unsuitable for other reasons as well) and even the drafting process itself can help propagate, introduce and discuss the matters.


=== Tehnoloogia moraalne läbipaistvus ===
An example of a code at a large company is provided by [http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/policy2.shtml IBM].


Kübereetika on sageli kirjeldav (hoidub hinnangu andmisest), mitte normatiivne (hindab olukorda/tegu õigeks või vääraks). Siiski on ka normatiivse eetika jaoks oma koht, mõnel juhul sõltub eetika normatiivsus ka tehnoloogiast endast:
=== Conclusion ===
* '''Läbipaistev''' - kõik on arusaadav, kasutajad mõistavad nii tehnoloogiat (vähemalt üldtasemel) kui moraalseid valikuid (näiteks telefonivõrk ja selle pealtkuulamise eetilisus).
* '''Läbipaistmatu, tuntud omadused''' - kasutajad mõistavad tehnoloogia üldpõhimõtteid, kuid ei pruugi tajuda moraalseid valikuid (näiteks Google).
* '''Läbipaistmatu, tundmatud omadused''' - kasutajad ei taju mingeid moraalseid kaalutlusi (näiteks nutistu ehk IoT).


The base nature of ethics has not changed in the information era, but there are many new questions and some have received new viewpoints. The importance of the field has grown however - due to the ubiquity of IT, the ethical choices made there will significantly influence many other fields (especially those where the technologies start out as non-transparent). Therefore, the base points of ethics should be codified in the future as well.


=== Kas eetika tuleks koodeksina kirja panna ===
=== References ===
 
Mõned arvavad, et see on bürokraatlik ajaraisk - kuid samas on samamoodi kirja pandud ka ettevõtte sisekorraeeskirjad, turvareeglistik ning mitmed teised dokumendid. Lisaks juriidilisele staatusele aitab selline dokument ka leida sobivaid inimesi (kohe alguses eetikakoodeksiga mittenõustuja ilmselt ei olegi sobiv inimene), ka aitab juba sedalaadi dokumendi koostamisprotsess ise selles sisalduvaid ideid levitada, tutvustada ja läbi vaielda. 
 
Ühe suurfirma eetikakoodeksi näitena võib tuua [http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/policy2.shtml IBM'i oma].
 
 
=== Kokkuvõtteks ===
 
Eetika ei ole oma olemuselt muutunud ka infoajastul, ent lisandunud on terve rida uusi küsimusi ning mõningaid asju on hakatud vaatama
uue nurga alt. Selle valdkonnaga aga on vaja tegelda, kuna IT kõikehõlmavuse tõttu mõjutavad siin tehtavad eetilised valikud oluliselt ka paljusid teisi valdkondi (eriti neid, kus esialgu on tehnoloogia laiemale avalikkusele läbipaistmatu). Seetõttu tasub peamisi eetilisi lähtekohti ka jätkuvalt kirja panna.
 
=== Viited ===


* HIMANEN, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Random House Inc. New York, 2001.
* HIMANEN, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Random House Inc. New York, 2001.
* NORTHCUTT, Stephen. IT Ethics Handbook: Right and Wrong for IT Professionals. Syngress 2004
* NORTHCUTT, Stephen. IT Ethics Handbook: Right and Wrong for IT Professionals. Syngress 2004
* PINTER, Robert (ed). Information Society: Coursebook. Gondolat - Ǔj Mandǎtum 2008.
* PINTER, Robert (ed). Information Society: Coursebook. Gondolat - Ǔj Mandǎtum 2008.
* QUINN, Michael J. Ethics for the Information Age. International Edition. 5th ed. Pearson 2012
* QUINN, Michael J. Ethics for the Information Age. International Edition. 6th ed. Pearson 2015
* TAVANI, Herman T. Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Infomation and Communication Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Danvers 2007.
* TAVANI, Herman T. Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Infomation and Communication Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Danvers 2007.
== Uuri ja kirjuta ==
Erinevad ettevõtted ja organisatsioonid on koostanud mitmeid võrgust leitavaid IT-eetikakoodekseid. Vali neist üks huvipakkuvam ja analüüsi seda ajaveebiartiklis.

Viimane redaktsioon: 1. mai 2019, kell 18:43


Ain't good and bad the same as in times of old?

Ethic in its classic sense describes the rules and standards that regulate the behaviour of an individual towards others. On the one hand, most 'golden rules' do apply in the age of Internet as well. On the other hand, it has brought along a row of new ethical questions, some of which have made it necessary to reconsider old ideas (everything about 'intellectual property' is a good example). Let us imagine meeting Socrates or any other classical sage and asking questions from him - he would answer those dealing with his known world easily. But what about his opinion about things like spam, trolling or 'letters from a Nigerian prince'?

Or, is it another tempest in a teapot? Not quite: as it has been said before, Internet is, above all, people. It is a huge community where people physically by thousands of miles apart are able to directly influence each other. And as seen before, without a certain critical mass of ethic, we will get a cyberdump instead of cyberspace.

The 'Death by Dung' is most likely if the disregard toward ethic would prevail. Just as there are sociopathic businesspeople and politicians in real life who would damage the environment in the name of personal profit, similar 'lower life forms' do exist online as well.


Different points of view

Herman Tavani in his Ethics and Technology talks about cyberethics, as the terms of computer ethics and even internet ethics would not show enough the human(s) behind the technology. According to him, the cyberethics can have different points of view, for instance

  • IT - ethical challenges stemming from the adoption of new technologies.
  • Philosophy - putting the tech-related ethical questions to a larger, 'Big Picture' context.
  • Social and behavioural sciences - measuring the impact of new technologies to social institutions and various groups in the society.
  • Information sciences - ethical problems related to legal topics (e.g. copyright etc), censorship and freedom of speech online.


Tavani also proposes three different approaches:

  • Professional ethics - predominantly the view of computer, natural and information sciences, the issues include professionalism, responsibilities, risks, safety and reliability, codes of conduct etc.
  • Philosophical ethics - the philosophical and legal view on issues like privacy, anonymity, copyright, freedom of speech etc.
  • Descriptive ethics - the view of social sciences on e.g. the impact of technology on various institutions (government, education etc) and social groups (e.g. by sex/gender, age, ethnicity etc).


Some ethical theories

Michael J. Quinn in his Ethics for the Information Age has listed different ethical theories that might be used in an information society:

  • Subjective Relativism (Moral Relativism) - while Relativism denies the existence of universal morality, Subjective Relativism proposes that each individual has his/her own Right and Wrong (the maxim "What’s right for you may not be right for me").
  • Cultural Relativism - this theory sees the Right and Wrong in the context of specific cultures, capable of changing both in time (different eras) and space (different locations).
  • Divine Command Theory - as the ethical cornerstone of three large 'book religions' (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), this theory bases the Right and Wrong on the divine will and commands conveyed in the Scriptures.
  • Ethical Egoism - this theory is perhaps best seen in the novels by Ayn Rand. According to it, the long-term personal benefit should be the sole criterion for the Right; barter is seen as a foundational principle in human relationships - while Ethical Egoism does not rule out helping others, it is only considered reasonable in case of mutual benefit.
  • Kantianism - the theory stands on the works of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who tried to formulate universal ethics setting an universal code of conduct. His main thesis known as the Categorícal Imperative has two formulations:
    1. the principle of autonomy (First Formulation): Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.
    2. the principle of motives (Second Formulation): Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end.
  • Act Utilitarism (also Direct Utilitarism) - the theory by the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill has utility as a central tenet (the greatest happiness principle: An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties. Note that according to this principle, it is possible to act right for wrong reasons, and vice versa.
  • Rule Utilitarism (also Indirect Utilitarism) - this theory applies utility as a measuring stick to rules rather than directly to actions; the act is deemed right if the rule mandating it is right. According to the theory, the right rules are the ones that, when used as moral code, bring more happiness (to all parties combined) than other rules. The approach is somewhat similar to Kant's, but while Kant stresses motives, this theory considers the actual results.
  • The Social Contract Theory was first formulated by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan and later added to by Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. According to it, the society should strive to develop a set of rules that make sense to everyone (making people follow them voluntarily). For instance, driving on the right (or in some places, left) could be a common example - drivers keep to the right not for fearing the police but to avoid confusion and possible crashes.
  • The Rawls' Theory of Justice by John Rawls stems from two assumptions:
    1. Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties.
    2. Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume (e.g. by obtaining necessary education); and second, they are "to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle; an example could be gradual taxation).
  • The Virtue Ethics can be traced back to ancient Greece (perhaps most notably, Aristotle). According to it, a right action is an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in the same circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who possesses and lives out the virtues. The virtues are those character traits human beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy. Aristotle also distinguishes between the intellectual and moral virtues, considering the latter more important (as they are innate, personal traits rather than learned behaviour).

Main fields of discussion

The previous theories have become the most contested in three large technology-related fields: rewarding creativity (e.g. copyright and other similar issues), privacy, and censorship. While the latter two have acquired new dimensions during the IT era, the first one faces perhaps the most radical changes of the three. Additionally, the digital gap (where some parts of the world are online and others are not, leaving the latter ones disadvantaged), information security, and social media (journalism is not limited to professional journalists anymore) all pose new ethical challenges.

There are many ethical questions which are totally new. A good example would be domain squatting online - someone would buy a lot of domains in the hopes of someone needing some of them later, or snatch one away before some interested party can act (in both cases, potential profit is the main motive). The later case is already better regulated today, allowing 'returning' the squatted domain to the 'justified party' (e.g. someone registering drinkcoke.ee would likely have to hand it over to the Coca-Cola corporation soon enough). There are still risks of both identity theft and extortion.

Half empty, or half full?

An example of the ambiguity of ethical considerations would be the list of online dangers formulated by Attila Krajci in 2000 (they are included in the book by Pinter; see the references below) where each one can also be added a positive point of view:

  • Trust: "You never know who is on the other side" vs "you can have a carte blanche, ridding you of earlier loads".
  • Authenticity: "What you find cannot be trusted" vs "you can look at the information itself rather than external authority".
  • Sense of reality: "Things go unreal if you are online too much" vs "sometimes, the cyberspace is what someone needs in order to open up".
  • Alienation: "net addicts get alienated from others" vs "sometimes a way to escape is necessary".
  • Identity: "you can be whoever you want until you do not know anymore who you are" vs "you can be whoever you want and stay yourself".
  • Aggression: "computer games make you aggressive" vs "games can teach very different things".
  • Extremes: "Internet has porn, pedophiles and brainwashers" vs "sometimes one needs to see wrong to know right".
  • Communication: "Internet does not allow using the whole spectrum of communication" vs "Internet commmunication adds new ways of communication, sometimes by seemingly truncating them".
  • Noise: "you get lost in the mass of information" vs "there will be totally new ways to extract what you need".

Thus, it is not possible to say that one is right and the other is not. A similar approach is also used by Stephen Northcutt in his IT Ethics Handbook, describing a large number of ethical dilemmas and providing two radically different answers from different viewpoints.

The book by Pinter also describes two approaches to IT - the technophiliac and technophobic views. The former looks at Internet as a kind of Cyber-Athens (in the classic, ancient sense) - the agora or meetup is even more effective in the cyberspace, promoting direct democracy and free society. The latter view, on the contrary, suggests that the result will be an Orwellian surveillance society with the Big Brother watching everywhere and should technology become advanced enough, the machines may come to the question about the necessity of humans ("You're a plague and we are the cure").

The middle way between the two extremes have been sought for a long time. An interesting initiative was the Technorealism movement starting with an eponymous manifesto in 1998. While their ideas had varying weight (see a cricical comment at http://www.zpub.com/aaa/techreal.html) and the movement predated the social media era, a similar balancing force would still be needed in today's world.

Tavani's phases of cyberethics

The phases of cyberethics formulated by Herman Tavani concur in part with the generations of computing in IT history. To illustrate the difference from today, he also uses a legendary quote attributed to the then-CEO of IBM, Thomas J. Watson: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" (there are alternate versions with 4 or 6).

Phase I

1950s and 1960s - standalone (non-networked) mainframes. The first attempts on artificial intelligence would bring along the first ethical questions in IT:

  • Can machines think? If yes, should we build a thinking machine?
  • If machines can be intelligent, then what it means to be human?

Also privacy is mentioned early on, mostly in the context of the Big Brother and large databases.

Phase II

1970s and 1980s - the rise of business sector, first networks (local and wide area networks). The main ethical questions include

  • personal privacy (adding the network and business aspects to the former phase).
  • rise of 'intellectual property' - the problems related to unauthorized copying.
  • beginning of computer crime, at first in the form of pranks and intrusion (unlawful entry).

Phase III

Since around 1990 - the Web era. Additional issues include

  • freedom of speech
  • anonymity
  • legislation
  • trust
  • public vs private information

Phase IV

Near future - merging technologies, ubiquitous computing, smart objects and things, chips, bioinformatics, probably nanocomputing.

Moral transparency of technology

Cyberethics is often descriptive (non-normative; avoids judgement) rather than normative (judges the act or situation as right or wrong). However, the normative approach has its place, and in some cases, the normativity depends on the technology in question:

  • Transparent - everything is clear, the users understand both the technology (at least on the base level) and related moral choices (e.g. phone network and the ethics of surveillance).
  • Non-transparent with known features - the users understand the main principles but may not realize the related moral choices (e.g. Google).
  • Non-transparent with unknown features - the users do not understand neither principles (black box) nor any moral factors (e.g. Internet of Things).

Should ethics be codified?

Some consider it a bureaucratic waste of time, but the internal rules of a company, security policy and various other documents are largely done the same way. Besides having a legal status, such documents would help finding suitable people (someone disagreeing with the code of conduct from day one is likely unsuitable for other reasons as well) and even the drafting process itself can help propagate, introduce and discuss the matters.

An example of a code at a large company is provided by IBM.

Conclusion

The base nature of ethics has not changed in the information era, but there are many new questions and some have received new viewpoints. The importance of the field has grown however - due to the ubiquity of IT, the ethical choices made there will significantly influence many other fields (especially those where the technologies start out as non-transparent). Therefore, the base points of ethics should be codified in the future as well.

References

  • HIMANEN, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Random House Inc. New York, 2001.
  • NORTHCUTT, Stephen. IT Ethics Handbook: Right and Wrong for IT Professionals. Syngress 2004
  • PINTER, Robert (ed). Information Society: Coursebook. Gondolat - Ǔj Mandǎtum 2008.
  • QUINN, Michael J. Ethics for the Information Age. International Edition. 6th ed. Pearson 2015
  • TAVANI, Herman T. Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Infomation and Communication Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Danvers 2007.