Reaction to problems of privacy and confidentiality seem to be driven by recourse
to technological and economic considerations rather than to normative ones.
The dominant way of dealing with problems is also explained (but not justified)
by political factors, since adopting normative policies is interpreted as politically
risky. Problems are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not on the basis of
an overarching policy. If an overarching policy is preferred, it might be preferable
to pursue a federal approach, rather than a local or state approach. In Canada,
there exists the Office of the Privacy Commissioner whose function it is to
apprise national policy makers of potential problems and issues. In any case,
the development of an overarching policy need not and ought not lead to the
creation of a large bureaucracy to oversee computer associated privacy and confidentiality
problems (as may or may not happen in Europe). The issues of what information
ought to be made public about one’s self, and how that information may
be used, seems best left to individuals themselves, assuming the development
and passage of legislation sufficient to allow individuals to record and enforce
their preferences.
While some uses of computer technologies threaten the privacy and confidentiality
of individuals, we ought not loose sight of the fact that different uses of
the same technology may provide us with new and better ways of safeguarding
privacy and confidentiality. And this is the point: it really is a matter of
how we use the technologies. For example, consider the case where a proximity
identification system is used to limit access to certain buildings; students
with the right cards gain access, those without do not. But the same technology
can be used to track students, in effect, to determine where and with whom they
congregate. License plate readers make passage through toll booths a speedier
affair, thereby eliminating long lines. But the same technology can be used
by Immigration and Naturalization officers to track “undesirables.”
With the aim of realizing a better understanding of the problems of privacy
and confidentiality and, ultimately, with the aim of promoting an ethical practice
of computing, the NCCV Working Group on Privacy and Confidentiality offers the
following recommendations and policies:
First, the Research Center on Computing and Society should:
- Conduct research to determine (a) the kind of information that is being
gathered about individual Americans, (b) the uses to which the information
is being put, (c) the extent to which the information is being propagated,
and (d) the amount of revenue that is being generated through the sale of
such information.
- Identify existing laws that bear on issues of privacy and confidentiality.
If such studies already exist, as is reasonable to suppose, they should be
collected. While some individuals believe that sufficient privacy and confidentiality
protection already exists in the Bill of Rights, the advantages and disadvantages
of an “Electronic Bill of Rights” for the home, school, and work
place should be examined.
- Pursue avenues of research into the practices of the private sector with
special emphasis on the retention and disposal of information about individuals,
and the extent to which stored information is stale or outdated.
- Investigate the effect of adequate privacy policy on the private sector’s
ability to be competitive worldwide.
- Pursue the issue, pro and con, of whether there can ever be a morally justifiable
exception to the rule that data ought never be used for purposes other than
that for which it was originally collected.
- Pursue the moral, technological and economic feasibility of notifying persons
whenever information about them is being used.
- Determine ways in which individuals can preserve anonymity in a technologically
advanced society without greatly diminishing one’s quality of life.
Second, the National Science Foundation should:
- Press for a presidentially or congressionally funded national commission,
with staff, to produce a report on all relevant aspects of computing, privacy,
and confidentiality. Such a report should issue in policy options.
- Independently of the national commission, NSF should sponsor a “micro-commission”
addressed to issues of privacy and confidentiality in academia.
- Institutions seeking funds from NSF for purposes of attaching to a network
should include with their requests an institutional policy statement regarding
issues of privacy and confidentiality. NSF should refuse to disburse funds
until such time as privacy and confidentiality policies have been adopted
at the requesting institution.
- NSF should encourage studies seeking to determine the ways in which computer
technologies may enhance equitable access while preserving privacy and confidentiality
whenever appropriate.
- NSF should sponsor cross-generational computer-centered projects, perhaps
under the title “Creating Our Computer Futures.” Such projects should
bring young and old together, and exploit excitement for the technology while
drawing upon a deeper understanding and appreciation of moral conduct and
values. Young and old would produce and learn to use correctly such tools
as electronic bulletin boards, thereby addressing the need for greater education.
- NSF should fund or sponsor summer institutes for teachers at all levels
of education on the topic of privacy and confidentiality in computing. The
objective would be to equip teachers with current knowledge and techniques
needed to immerse their students in the issues.
Finally, the Working Group supports the following policies.
- Producers of databases should be obligated to date their data and to specify
the source of the information. They should also state the period of validity
of the data, and if unable to do so, should provide visible, unambiguous and
otherwise adequate disclaimers.
- Database owners, developers, and users should be obligated to act in a manner
consistent with the “Code of Fair Information Practices.” In particular,
data should never be used for purposes other than that for which it was collected,
unless the individual about whom the data is collected is informed and gives
consent.
- All persons who use computer services such as e-mail, bulletin boards, etc,
should be provided with “upfront” information regarding such actions
as whether her files may or may not be searched, and the types of files to
be searched; whether messages and advertisements are edited and/or censored,
in part or in whole, etc; and what the methods of enforcement and penalties
are, as well as appeal procedures whenever one is judged to have breached
system policy.
Home > Research
Resources > Computing and Privacy
> Track Report
Back to the Main Site
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street | New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 | e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org
© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society