|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Essentially this article examines the Pentagon’s decision to explore an opportunity to embark on a ‘Total Information Awareness’ (TIA) project. If this project proceeds, it will facilitate the connection of diverse databases for data mining , to assist in the location of individuals linked with terrorism suspects. The press has followed this debate closely because it raises ethical issues that ‘strike at the heart of the “Right to Privacy”. Clearly where there are large amounts of personal information stored in databases, especially on the scale proposed by this project, there are concerns about the management of individual’s rights concerning this information. TIA technology raises these ethical issues because developments in database, hardware and communications technology have provided new possibilities for: • Personal data storage & analysis • Interception, encryption and decryption • Surveillance • Integration with other new technologies Vogt emotively compares the TIA project to the East German ‘Stasi’, who collected vast amounts of personal information about individuals and abused the same. Vogt argues that the Pentagon is following a “dangerous Utilitarian-view by believing the goal of rooting out terrorists, justifies the intrusion into our private lives”. He also articulates the objectivist-argument that “there are some things that a free society should never allow” i.e. Data-mining techniques that compromise the “right to privacy” (TIA) [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] Vogt successfully points out that if “the danger of terrorism was so great and so pervasive that we need to sign away our basic rights it should be done after careful deliberation and intense and open public discussion”. Further to this it should be something that we “choose through our elected representatives”. [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] Vogt argues that the TIA database would “present a massive opportunity for abuse, if this information should fall into the wrong hands”. Later in the article, Vogt further develops this point by presenting an example where the “FBI has lost control of a ‘watch list’ created in the wake of the September 11 attacks”. [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] Some companies to do background checks on individuals have apparently used this list. To further strengthen his claim Vogt continues to argue that some of the people that are on the list are no longer suspects! The ‘mishandled list’ example gives support to the individual’s ‘right to privacy’ and demonstrates what can happen when this right is disregarded. By using these examples Vogt puts to rest one of the main arguments for the TIA project, which is, “if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear.” [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] Supporters of TIA suggest that we should ‘trust the Government’. [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] Vogt refutes this with the ‘mishandled list’ example and the fact that some government officials (John Poindexter – the architect of this project) have demonstrated a willingness to break the law for personal and political aims. In summary the ethics issues surrounding the “right to privacy” in relation to the TIA project and for data mining in general are in my opinion, quite real. I think that Vogt has argued his case well but I also think that he contradicts himself when he argues, “there are some things that a free society should never allow”. [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] You cannot argue this absolute and then a few paragraphs later state that if “the danger of terrorism was so great and so pervasive that we need to sign away our basic rights” it “should be done after careful deliberation and intense and open public discussion”. Further to this it should be something that we choose through our elected representatives”. [Carlton Vogt, InfoWorld, November 20,2002, < http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/11/20/021122opethics_1.html >] The ethical problems that this project raises are complex to say the least. Yes, we need to ensure the safety of our society and protect ourselves from terrorism but we also need to protect privacy. Solving the privacy issues that the TIA project raises is not an easy task. In a free society where we value our democratic traditions we must ensure that data subjects have “informed choices” for collection, mining and exchange of data about themselves. IT professionals are employees as well. We all on a daily basis have to balance the requirements of our employer with the ideal world of professional ethics. IT professionals are not and neither should we be moral crusaders. We have a job to do, a job that pays our rent. It is my opinion that an IT professional’s moral responsibility is to ensure as much as is possible, that privacy policies are discussed openly and fairly. Beyond this, we need to debate and decide as a community whether we allow ideas like the TIA project to become a reality. Further to this, we must also decide on what terms if at all it would proceed. Reason! Able Diagram Article 2 Little Big Brother is watching you [Miriam Schulman, Issues in Ethics – V.9,N.2, Spring, 1998, < http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html >] The main ethical issue that is discussed in this article is the employees right to privacy in relation to work place monitoring. This article introduces a product called “Little Big Brother” as being representative of the ever-expanding capability that technology has provided for the monitoring of a workforce.
Approximate Word count = 3527
Approximate Pages = 14.1
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|