Delegating and distributing morality: Can we inscribe privacy protection in a machine? [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Information Technology 7 (4):233-242 (2005)
|Abstract||This paper addresses the question of delegation of morality to a machine, through a consideration of whether or not non-humans can be considered to be moral. The aspect of morality under consideration here is protection of privacy. The topic is introduced through two cases where there was a failure in sharing and retaining personal data protected by UK data protection law, with tragic consequences. In some sense this can be regarded as a failure in the process of delegating morality to a computer database. In the UK, the issues that these cases raise have resulted in legislation designed to protect children which allows for the creation of a huge database for children. Paradoxically, we have the situation where we failed to use digital data in enforcing the law to protect children, yet we may now rely heavily on digital technologies to care for children. I draw on the work of Floridi, Sanders, Collins, Kusch, Latour and Akrich, a spectrum of work stretching from philosophy to sociology of technology and the “seamless web” or “actor–network” approach to studies of technology. Intentionality is considered, but not deemed necessary for meaningful moral behaviour. Floridi’s and Sanders’ concept of “distributed morality” accords with the network of agency characterized by actor–network approaches. The paper concludes that enfranchizing non-humans, in the shape of computer databases of personal data, as moral agents is not necessarily problematic but a balance of delegation of morality must be made between human and non-human actors.|
|Keywords||actor–network theory artificial agents data protection law delegation distributed morality intentionality privacy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Schaar (2010). Privacy by Design. Identity in the Information Society 3 (2):267-274.
David B. Resnik (2003). Strengthening the United States' Database Protection Laws: Balancing Public Access and Private Control. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (3):301-318.
Elin Palm (2009). Privacy Expectations at Work—What is Reasonable and Why? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (2):201 - 215.
Jacques Penders (2004). Privacy in (Mobile) Telecommunications Services. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (4):247-260.
Krisana Kitiyadisai (2005). Privacy Rights and Protection: Foreign Values in Modern Thai Context. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (1):17-26.
Gloria González Fuster (2010). Inaccuracy as a Privacy-Enhancing Tool. Ethics and Information Technology 12 (1):87-95.
Eva Johansson (2001). Morality in Children's Worlds Â Rationality of Thought or Values Emanating From Relations? Studies in Philosophy and Education 20 (4):345-358.
Feng-Yang Kuo, Cathy S. Lin & Meng-Hsiang Hsu (2007). Assessing Gender Differences in Computer Professionals' Self-Regulatory Efficacy Concerning Information Privacy Practices. Journal of Business Ethics 73 (2):145 - 160.
Herman T. Tavani (1999). Informational Privacy, Data Mining, and the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (2):137-145.
Alexander Dix (2010). Built-in Privacy—No Panacea, but a Necessary Condition for Effective Privacy Protection. Identity in the Information Society 3 (2):257-265.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #53,612 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?