Ethics in Information Technology

Are the ethical decisions that a technology user must make fundamentally different than those facing the ordinary person? No, because it is difficult to resolve competing interests no matter what the nature of action or behavior is contemplated. Is the existence of competing interests’ reason enough to impose a set of rules, or codes of conduct, within the technology environment?

Unfortunately, the large number of activities, and their complex nature, conducted by information technology professionals, and users, can sometimes have serious repercussions, and affect the well being of many individuals. When these activities include, theft, destruction, or fraud, most would agree these types of activities are wrong. However, when can the behavior with respect to, privacy issues associated with databases and electronic mail, and electronic monitoring be considered wrong? Developing a set of rules, or codes of conduct will identify accepted actions for technology users.

Privacy concerns have heightened the unease about ethics within technology. And it is this unease that prompted many professional organizations, such as the Association for Computing Professionals (ACM), to develop ethical codes of conduct for information technology professionals and users to provide guidance about ethical behavior. This paper will discuss the form of some of these codes and their effectiveness.

The code of ethics adopted by ACM consists of 24 imperatives (ACM, 1992). These imperatives, similar to Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Deontological theory, are rules that command a type of action without regard to the type of desired end. For instance, ACM’s General Moral Imperative 1.5 “Honor property rights including copyrights and patents” presupposes situations where matters of public security require custody of personal property in order to acquire information of unlawful activity. For example, under this theory, it is not considered ethical to steal a loaf of bread even if your family is starving. As long as the means to achieve this goal is ethical, the result will be considered ethical.

On the other hand, the code of ethics adopted by the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), displays similarities to Jeremy Bentham’s ethical theory of Utilitarianism, where the essential goals of one’s act is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. IEEE members agree to “accept the responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment”. This association appears to accept that the use of any means to accomplish this goal is ethical as long as the result is for the greater good. This association feels as long as a piece of information will benefit the public or the environment it is acceptable to release or use it. Apparently even if it is private information, as there are no provisions for exceptions.

The code of ethics adopted by Hackers, includes the statement, “access to computers…..should be unlimited and total” (Levy, 1985). This statement rings familiar and is similar to the Ethical Relativism theory, where each individual’s behavior is viewed as relative to his or her own culture. Hackers have the belief that information is a right to all, at any time and anywhere, and do not recognize software ownership. A member of this culture would applaud any Hacker who was able to gain access to the tightest of computer systems, such as the US Military. Privacy and property rights are not recognized within this code of ethics.

These examples of ethical codes of conduct, demonstrate there are many ways to view ethics, as each sample is diametrically opposed to the others. What is the basic difference between these ethical theories in relation to private information gathering?

The Deontological theory says, you can ethically have access to the private information only if the way you get the information is ethical, so you have to have permission. The Utilitarianism theory say, you can ethically have access to the private information only if the private information contributes to the greater good, and it doesn’t matter how you get it. The Ethical Relativism theory says, you can ethically have access to the information as your culture says it is acceptable to have it, because possession of information makes one better off.

A search of the internet, or the daily newspaper, reveals there are still many ethical concerns, including, the responsibility for collecting, verifying, storing, protecting, and distributing personal information. This issue was highlighted by the recently alleged attempt by Hewlett Packard’s investigative team to obtain the