Which of the following is an ethical issue when it comes to internet privacy?

This article is a transcript of the video What Is Internet Ethics? In the video, Irina Raicu, director of Internet Ethics, discusses topics such as privacy, big data, net neutrality, and internet access.

Internet ethics is a really broad term. It basically refers to the analysis of the role that the internet plays in what philosophers call the development of the good life - the kind of life that we want for ourselves, for society over all, the kinds of people we want to be. Is the internet playing a positive role in the development of that kind of life or is it hampering us in some way?

And there are a lot of issues that fall under that umbrella. Everything from the role that social media plays in the creation of human relationships, to privacy, to net neutrality, to the whole question of who has and doesn't have access to the internet, to the development of the big data ecosystem, the kind of data that's collected, by whom and about whom, and for what purposes. There are a variety of questions that fall under that term and increasingly new questions because the internet has some connection to every aspect of our lives.

Privacy

One of the most interesting ethical questions on internet ethics revolves around privacy online. Can the internet continue to be a medium that invites creativity and freedom of expression and freedom of sharing information across borders even as it's becoming a tool of mass surveillance, either from corporate entities or from governments or from both?

Increasingly we find that people are concerned that their personal data is being collected and stored and used in a variety of ways that they're not really aware of, that they don't want to have used against them, or in ways that they don't anticipate, and it's becoming really a problem for what had been a fantastic way to allow people to communicate.

Big Data

One of the phenomena that the rise of the internet has led to is the collection and analysis of big data, which raises fascinating ethical questions about who or what the data is being collected about, who's being left out of that kind of data collection, who makes the decisions about what is being done with that data, and how much we can rely on it. There's aan air of objectivity and completeness about this data that turns out to be misleading, and at the same time we are relying on it as this objective source of truth on a very widespread societal level.

We allow big data now to impact the decisions we make about who goes to prison, who gets bail, who gets a job, who gets insurance, what kind of majors people might go into in college. And it's fascinating to see a kind of maturing of the field and big data proponents and analysts themselves finding out that they have a much greater responsibility than they had initially realized.

Net Neutrality

One of the ethical principles behind the development of the internet has been net neutrality, the idea that the controllers of the pipelines of the internet will not be able to pick and choose between the kinds of content that's available, that everything will be able to flow freely.

And increasingly that's being challenged as the companies that really run those pipelines try to find ways to benefit or to encourage the consumption of some content more than others. And there are regulators getting involved and there are civil libertarians and civic groups trying to argue that we want to have this impartial, neutral, internet conduit.

That will be one of the really interesting issues to watch: whether the internet continues to be a sort of neutral playground for communication and transfer of information or whether some content is  favored in some way.  What does that mean for freedom and access to information in general?

Access to the Internet

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics is in the heart of Silicon Valley, and even here in Silicon Valley there are people who don't have access to the internet or who have very limited access only via their phones, or not through broadband. We hear stories about students having to sit in their cars outside of McDonald's or some other place that offers free Wi-Fi.

We need to ask whether internet access should be seen as a human right, especially in our society, in our culture. The fact that there are still vast numbers of people across the U.S. who have to struggle with this is an ethical imperative for the government and for corporations and for schools and for any other entities that deal with the broad public to consider.  We should stop assuming that we all have access to the internet and that we can all use those resources. It's simply not true.  The ethical question of how we create equality in a country where so much is dependent on the internet and so many people don't have access to it is really important.

"When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else." -- David Brin

"The principles of privacy and data protection must be balanced against additional societal values such as public health, national security and law enforcement, environmental protection, and economic efficiency." -- Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky

Even if you believe that privacy is important and valuable, you may still agree that there are ways in which the collection of vast amounts of data can help promote the "common good". In an article entitled "Privacy in the Age of Big Data: A Time for Big Decisions,"1 Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky list some of big data's "big benefits": the analysis of vast amounts of data has enabled researchers to determine adverse side effects of drugs that may otherwise have gone unnoticed; to track (and respond to) the spread of diseases; to develop the "smart grid," which is designed to optimize energy use; to improve traffic control; etc. Other researchers are analyzing big data to gain insights into various aspects of human behavior.

Aside from such benefits, you may also feel that that there are circumstances in which an invasion of privacy would be justified. For example, in some cases we allow law enforcement to collect and use certain information when they are investigating crimes or prosecuting alleged wrongdoers. We want the military to be able to thwart attacks against us: in order to do that, the military might need to invade some people's privacy in order to uncover terrorists or state actors that would harm us. We might support online tracking that would allow, say, the Centers for Disease Control to figure out which people may have been exposed to an infectious disease. We may even be willing to condone some violations of privacy by a school district seeking to uncover and stop an online bully.

In this context, we might consider a warning offered by Justice Brandeis in a famous dissenting opinion that he wrote in 1928, in Olmstead v. United States:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

When we try to determine the type of privacy that we want protected, and the extent to which we want it protected, we—the people "born to freedom"—have to find a balance. That's no easy feat, as Eli Noam, director of the Columbia Institute of Tele-information, explains:

Privacy is an interaction, in which the rights of different parties collide. A has a certain preference about the information he receives and lets out. B, on the other hand, may want to learn more about A, perhaps in order to protect herself. … [P]rivacy is an issue of control over information flows, with a much greater inherent complexity than a conventional "consumers versus business," or "citizens versus the state" analysis suggests.2

Because the striking of that balance may be damaging to some individuals or groups, and because it involves a choice between a "good" or "bad" alternative, or multiple "goods" and "bads," the process of finding that balance draws on the discipline of ethics. In evaluating alternative options, we may ask questions that have been distilled from various approaches to ethical decision-making.

As you evaluate new laws or rules proposed in the name of online privacy protection, new standards suggested by industries that profit from access to your online data, or new online social norms that develop over time, you could ask the following questions:

Would these measures respect the rights of all who have a stake in the outcome? Do some rights "trump" other rights, and, if so, which measure best respects the most important rights? This is the Rights Approach.

Would these measures treat people equally, or proportionately? This is the Justice Approach.

Taking into account, equally, everyone who would be affected by these measures, would these measures promote the most overall happiness, and cause the least overall harm and suffering? This is the Utilitarian Approach.

Would these measures best serve the community as a whole, not just some members? This is the Common Good Approach.

Would these measures lead people to develop the habits and character traits of a good person, the sort of person who is a moral example for others? This is the Virtue Approach.

Discussion Questions

Do all people have an equal need for privacy? Do some, who are more vulnerable in some way, need privacy more than others?

Do you believe that our legislators should pass new laws to protect privacy, given the new technologies and products that now collect information about us?

Should individuals bear the responsibility of protecting their own privacy? In your experience, do most people understand the way in which their information is accessed, collected, or otherwise used online?

1. Tene, Omer and Polonetsky, Jules. "Privacy in the Age of Big Data: A Time for Big Decisions." February 2, 2012. 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 63. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/big-data (last visited June 28, 2012).
2. Noam, Eli. "Privacy and Self-Regulation: Markets for Electronic Privacy." 1997. http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/priv_self.htm (last visited June 28, 2012).

Irina Raicu is the director of the Internet Ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

What are ethical issues of online privacy?

What are the four 4 ethical issues of cyber ethics?

What are the 3 issues that concern Internet ethics?

What are the ethical issues and privacy concerns when collecting data?