What Is Cyberethics?

◼ Cyberethics is the study of moral, legal, and

social issues involving cybertechnology.
◼ As a field of applied ethics, it:
➢ examines the impact that cybertechnology
has for our social, legal, and moral systems.
➢ evaluates the social policies and laws that we
frame in response to issues generated by the
development and use of cybertechnology.
What Is Cybertechnology?
◼ Cybertechnology refers to a wide range of
computing and communications devices
– from standalone computers, to "connected"
or networked computing and communications
technologies, to the Internet itself.
◼ Cybertechnologies include:
➢ digital electronic devices;
➢ networked computers (including servers,
desktops, laptops, etc.);
➢ stand-alone computers.
Cybertechnology (Continued)
◼ Networked devices can be connected
directly to the Internet.
◼ They also can be connected to other
devices through one or more privately
owned computer networks.
◼ Privately owned networks include both:
➢ Local Area Networks (LANs),
➢ Wide Area Networks (WANs).
Why the term cyberethics?
◼ Cyberethics is a more accurate label than
computer ethics, which can suggest the study
of ethical issues limited either to:
a) computing machines,
b) computing professionals.
◼ Cyberethics is also more accurate than
Internet ethics, which is limited only to ethical
issues affecting (only) networked computers
and devices.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics: Four Phases
◼ Computer technology emerged in the late 1940s,
when some analysts confidently predicted that no
more than six computers would ever need to be built.
◼ The first phase of computing technology (1950s and
1960s) consisted mainly of huge mainframe
computers that were unconnected (i.e., stand-alone
machines).
◼ One ethical/social question that arose during Phase 1
dealt with the impact of computing machines as
“giant brains” and what that meant for being human.
◼ Another question raised during this phase concerned
privacy threats and the fear of Big Brother.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics (Continued)
◼ In Phase 2 (1970s and 1980s), computing machines
and communications devices began to converge.
◼ Mainframe computers and personal computers could
be linked together via privately owned networks,
which generated three kinds of ethical/social issues:
1) privacy concerns (introduced in Phase 1) were
exacerbated because confidential information could
easily be exchanged between networked databases.
2) intellectual property issues emerged because
personal computers could easily be used to duplicate
and exchange proprietary software programs.
3) computer crime emerged because “hackers” could
break into the computers of large organizations.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics (Continued)
◼ During Phase 3 (1990-present), the availability of
Internet access to the general public has increased
significantly.
◼ This has been facilitated by the phenomenal growth
of the World Wide Web.
◼ The proliferation of Internet- and Web-based
technologies in this phase has raised ethical and
social concerns affecting:
➢ free speech,
➢ anonymity,
➢ jurisdiction.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics (Continued)
◼ In Phase 4 (present to near future), “Web 2.0” has made
possible the proliferation of social networking sites (SNSs),
such as Facebook and Twitter.
◼ As cybertechnology continues to evolve in Phase 4,
computers will likely become more and more a part of
who or what we are as human beings.
➢ For example, Moor (2005) notes that computing devices
will soon be a part of our clothing, and even our bodies.
◼ Computers are already becoming ubiquitous, and are
beginning to “pervade” both our work and recreational
environments.
◼ Objects in these environments already exhibit what Brey
(2005) calls “ambient intelligence,” which enables “smart
objects” to be connected via wireless technology.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics (Continued)
◼ In Phase 4, computers are becoming less visible
as distinct entities, as they:
a) continue to be miniaturized and integrated into
ordinary objects,
b) blend unobtrusively into our surroundings.
◼ Cybertechnology is also becoming less
distinguishable from other technologies as
boundaries that have previously separated them
begin to blur because of convergence.
The Evolution of Cybertechnology
and Cyberethics (Continued)
◼ Additional ethical/social concerns associated with
Phase IV include controversies that are made
possible by the following kinds of technologies:
◼ autonomous machines and sophisticated robots (used
in warfare, transportation, care for the elderly, etc.);
◼ nanocomputing and nano-scale devices;
◼ artificial agents (including “soft bots”) that act on
behalf of humans and corporations;
◼ AI-induced bionic chip implants (that can cause us to
question what it means to be human vs. cyborg).
 Table 1-1: Summary of Four
Phases of Cyberethics
Phase Time Period Technological Features Associated Issues

1 1950s-1960s Stand-alone machines (large Artificial intelligence (AI),

mainframe computers) database privacy ("Big Brother")

2 1970s-1980s Minicomputers and PCs Issues from Phase 1 plus

interconnected via privately owned concerns involving intellectual
networks property and software piracy,
computer crime, privacy and the
exchange of records.
3 1990s-Present Internet and World Wide Web Issues from Phases 1 and 2 plus
concerns about free speech,
anonymity, legal jurisdiction,
virtual communities, etc.
4 Present to Convergence of information and Issues from Phases 1-3 plus
communication technologies with concerns about artificial agents
Near Future nanotechnology research and ("bots") with decision-making
bioinformatics research, etc. capabilities, AI-induced bionic
chip implants, nanocomputing,
pervasive computing, etc.
Are Any Cyberethics Issues
Unique Ethical Issues?
◼ Review the Mobile-Phone Hacking incident
(Scenario 1-1 in the textbook).
◼ Is there anything new or unique, from an
ethical point of view, about the ethical issues
that emerge in this scenario?
◼ On the one hand, some high profile
celebrities was harrassed in ways that were
not possible in the pre-Internet era.
◼ But are any new or any unique ethical issues
generated in this scenario?
Debate about the Uniqueness of
Cyberethics Issues (Continued)
◼ There are two points of view on
whether cybertechnology has generated
any new or unique ethical issues:
1. Traditionalists argue that nothing is new –
crime is crime, and murder is murder.
2. Uniqueness Proponents argue that
cybertechnology has introduced (at least
some) new and unique ethical issues that
could not have existed before computers.
The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ Both sides seem correct on some claims, and
both seem to be wrong on others.
◼ Traditionalists underestimate the role that issues
of scale and scope that apply because of the
impact of computer technology.
➢ For example, cyberbullies can bully multiple
victims simultaneously (scale) and globally
(because of the scope or reach of the Internet).
➢ Cyberbullies can also operate without ever
having to leave the comfort of their homes.
The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ Those who defend the Uniqueness
thesis tend to overstate the effect that
cybertechnology has on ethics per se.
◼ Maner (2004) correctly points out that
computers are uniquely fast, uniquely
malleable, etc.
◼ So, there may indeed be some unique
aspects of computer technology.
The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ Proponents of the uniqueness thesis tend to confuse
unique features of tcomputer technology with unique
ethical issues.
◼ Their argument is based on a logical fallacy:
Premise. Cybertechnology has some unique
technological features.
Premise. Cybertechnology generates some ethical
issues.
Conclusion. (At least some of the) Ethical issues
generated by cybertechnology must be unique.
The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ Traditionalists and uniqueness
advocates are each partly correct.
◼ Traditionalists correctly point out that
no new ethical issues have been
introduced by computers.
◼ Uniqueness proponents are correct in
that cybertechnology has complicated
our analysis of traditional ethical issues.
The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ So, in analyzing the issues involved
in this debate, it is useful to
distinguish between any:
➢ unique technological features;

➢ (alleged) unique ethical issues.

The Uniqueness Debate
(Continued)
◼ Consider Scenarios 1-2 and 1-3 (in the
textbook) which involve:
a) computer professionals responsible for
designing the software code for a
controversial computer system;
b) ordinary users making unauthorized copies
of proprietary software.
◼ Are any of the ethical issues that arise in
either scenario unique ethical issues?
Alternative Strategy for Analyzing
the Uniqueness Issue
◼ Moor (2000) argues that computer
technology generates “new possibilities
for human action” because computers
are logically malleable.
◼ Logical malleability in computers means
that they can be molded in ways that
allow for many different kinds of uses.
◼ Some of the unanticipated uses of com-
puters have introduced policy vacuums.
Policy Vacuums and Conceptual
Muddles
◼ Policy vacuums are “voids” or gaps in
our laws and policies.
◼ One solution might seem simply to fill
the voids with new or revised policies.
◼ Some policy vacuums cannot easily be
filled because of conceptual muddles.
◼ In these cases, conceptual muddles first
need to be elucidated before clear
policies can be formulated and justified.
A Policy Vacuum in Duplicating
Software
◼ Consider again Scenario 1-3 (in the textbook)
involving the duplication of software.
◼ In the early 1980s, there were still no clear laws
regarding the duplication of software programs,
which had been made easy because of the
avaioability of personal computers.
◼ Because there were no clear rules for copying
programs, a policy vacuum arose.
◼ Before the policy vacuum could be filled, a
conceptual muddle had to be elucidated: What,
exactly, is software?
Cyberethics as a Branch of
Applied Ethics
◼ Applied ethics, unlike theoretical ethics,
examines "practical" ethical issues.
◼ It analyzes moral issues from the vantage-
point of one or more ethical theories.
◼ Ethicists working in fields of applied ethics are
more interested in applying ethical theories to
the analysis of specific moral problems than
in debating the ethical theories themselves.
Cyberethics as a Branch of
Applied Ethics (continued)
◼ Three distinct perspectives of
applied ethics (as applied to
cyberethics):
➢ Professional Ethics;
➢ Philosophical Ethics;
➢ Sociological/Descriptive Ethics.
Perspective # 1: Cyberethics as a
Branch of Professional Ethics
◼ According to this view, the purpose of cyberethics is
to identify and analyze issues of ethical responsibility
for computer/information technology
(IT)professionals.
◼ Consider a computer professional's role in designing,
developing, and maintaining computer hardware and
software systems.
◼ Suppose a programmer discovers that a software product
she has been working on is about to be released for sale
to the public, even though it is unreliable because it
contains “buggy” software.
◼ Should she “blow the whistle”?
Professional Ethics
◼ Gotterbarn (1995) has suggested that
computer ethics issues are professional ethics
issues.
◼ Computer ethics, for Gotterbarn, is similar to
medical ethics and legal ethics, which are tied
to issues involving specific professions.
◼ He notes that computer ethics issues aren’t,
strictly speaking, about technology per se.
➢ For example, he point out that we don’t have
automobile ethics, airplane ethics, etc.
Some Criticisms of the
Professional Ethics Perspective
◼ Is Gotterbarn’s model for computer
ethics too narrow for cyberethics?
◼ Consider that cyberethics issues affect
not only computer professionals; they
effect evirtually veryone.
◼ Before the widespread use of the
Internet, Gotterbarn’s professional-
ethics model may have been adequate.
Perspective # 2: Philosophical
Ethics
▪ From this perspective, cyberethics is a field of
philosophical analysis and inquiry that goes
beyond professional ethics.
▪ Moor (2000) defines computer ethics as:
...the analysis of the nature and social
impact of computer technology and the
corresponding formulation and justification
of policies for the ethical use of such
technology. [Italics Added.]
Philosophical Ethics
Perspective (continued)
◼ Moor argues that automobile and airplane
technologies did not affect our social policies
and norms in the same kinds of fundamental
ways that computer technology has.
◼ Automobile and airplane technologies have
revolutionized transportation, resulting in our
ability to travel faster and farther than was
possible in previous eras.
◼ But they did not have the same impact on our
legal and moral systems as cybertechnology.
Philosophical Ethics: Standard
Model of Applied Ethics
◼ Brey (2004) describes the “standard
methodology” used by philosophers in applied
ethics research as having three stages:
1) Identify a particular controversial practice as a
moral problem.
2) Describe and analyze the problem by clarifying
concepts and examining the factual data
associated with that problem.
3) Apply moral theories and principles to reach a
position about the particular moral issue.
Perspective #3: Cyberethics as a Field of
Sociological/Descriptive Ethics
◼ The professional and philosophical perspectives
both illustrate normative inquiries into applied
ethics issues.
◼ Normative inquiries or studies are contrasted
with descriptive studies.
◼ Descriptive (and sociological) investigations
report about “What is the case.“
◼ Normative inquiries evaluate situations from the
vantage-point of the question: “What ought to be
the case?”.
Sociological/Descriptive Ethics
Perspective (continued)
◼ Review Scenario 1-4 (in the textbook)
involving the impact of the introduction of a
new technology on a community’s workforce.
◼ Suppose that a new technology, Technology
X, displaces 8,000 workers in Community Y.
◼ If we analyze the issues solely in terms of
their sociological dimension, including the
number of jobs that were gained or lost in
that community, our investigation would be
essentially descriptive in nature.
Some Benefits of Using the
Sociological/Descriptive Approach
◼ Huff and Finholt (1994) claim that when we
understand the descriptive aspect of social
effects of technology, the normative ethical
issues become clearer.
◼ The descriptive/sociological perspective can
prepare us for our subsequent (normative)
analysis of the ethical issues that affect our
system of policies and laws.
 Table 1-2: Summary of Cyberethics
Perspectives
Type of Perspective Associated Issues Examined
Disciplines

Professional Computer Science Professional Responsibility

Engineering System Reliability/Safety
Library/Information Codes of Conduct
Science
Philosophical Philosophy Privacy & Anonymity
Law Intellectual Property
Free Speech

Sociological/Descriptive Sociology Impact of cybertechnology

Behavioral Sciences on governmental/financial/
educational institutions and
socio-demographic groups
A "Disclosive" Method for
Cyberethics
◼ Brey (2004) believes that because of embedded
biases in cybertechnology, the standard applied-
ethics methodology is not adequate for
identifying cyberethics issues.
➢ For example, Brey notes that we might fail to
notice certain features embedded in the design
of cybertechnology.
➢ Using the standard model, we might also fail to
recognize that certain practices involving
cybertechnology can have moral implications.
Disclosive Method (Continued)
◼ Brey points out that one weakness of the
“standard method of applied ethics” is that it
tends to focus on known moral controversies
◼ So, that model fails to identify practices
involving cybertechnology which have moral
implications but that are not yet known.
◼ Brey refers to these practices as having
morally opaque (or morally non-transparent)
features, which he contrasts with "morally
transparent” features.
Figure 1-2: Embedded Technological Features
Having Moral Implications

Transparent Features Morally Opaque Features

Known Features Unknown Features

Users are aware of Users are not even
these features but do aware of the
not realize they have technological features
moral implications. that have moral
implications

Examples can Examples might

include:Web Forms include data-mining
and search- technology and
engine tools. Internet cookies.
A Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Level Method
for Cyberethics

◼ Brey’s disclosive method is

multidisciplinary because it requires
the collaboration of:
➢ computer scientists,

➢ philosophers,

➢ social scientists.
A Multi-Disciplinary & Multi-Level Method for
Cyberethics (Continued)

◼ Brey’s scheme is also multi-level

because the method for conducting
computer ethics research requires three
levels of analysis, i.e., a:
➢ disclosure level,
➢ theoretical level,
➢ application level.
 Table 1-3: Three Levels in Brey’s
Model of Computer Ethics
Level Disciplines Involved Task/Function
Disclosive Computer Science Disclose embedded
Social Science features in computer
(optional) technology that have
moral import

Theoretical Philosophy Test newly disclosed

features against
standard ethical
theories

Application Computer Science Apply standard or

Philosophy newly revised/
Social Science formulated ethical
theories to the issues
 A Three-step Strategy for
Approaching Cyberethics Issues
Step 1. Identify a practice involving cyber-technology, or a feature in that technology, that is controversial from
a moral perspective.
1a. Disclose any hidden (or opaque) features or issues that have moral implications
1b. If the ethical issue is descriptive, assess the sociological implications for relevant social
institutions and socio-demographic and populations.
1c. If the ethical issue is also normative, determine whether there are any specific guidelines, that
is, professional codes that can help you resolve the issue (see Appendixes A-E).

1d. If the normative ethical issues remain, go to Step 2.

Step 2. Analyze the ethical issue by clarifying concepts and situating it in a context.
2a. If a policy vacuums exists, go to Step 2b; otherwise go to Step 3.
2b. Clear up any conceptual muddles involving the policy vacuum and go to Step 3 .
Step 3. Deliberate on the ethical issue. The deliberation process requires two stages:
3a. Apply one or more ethical theories (see Chapter 2) to the analysis of the moral issue, and then
go to step 3b.
3b. Justify the position you reached by evaluating it against the rules for logic/critical thinking (see
Chapter 3).