ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES

Bachelor of Science in Computer Science

Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO CYBER ETHICS - CONCEPTS, PERSPECTIVES, AND METHODOLOGICAL

FRAMEWORKS
WEEK 1

Learning Outcomes:
After completing this course you are expected to demonstrate the following:
1. Define key terms such as cyberethics and cybertechnology;
2. Describe key developmental phases in cybertechnology that influenced the evolution of
cyberethics as a distinct field of applied ethic
3. Consider whether there is anything unique or special about cyberethics issues
4. Examine three distinct perspectives for identifying and approaching cyberethics issues
5. Propose a comprehensive methodological scheme for analyzing cyberethics issues.

A. Engage

Trivia:

Figure 1.1: ENIAC One Of The First Computers

On this date in 1946, ENIAC, one of the first electronic computers was dedicated. ENIAC stands for
Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer. It was designed to calculate artillery firing tables for
the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Research laboratory. It was literally a computer. It could solve numerical
problems, which were usually done by people, who were also called computers.

Figure 1.2: Famous female programmer

Ada Lovelace (1815-1852) The First Computer Programmer

Ada’s childhood lacked fairy tales and princesses, even though her father was the famed Lord Byron.
Instead, her mother raised her on science. Ada Lovelace immediately gravitated towards machines
Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 1 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

and obsessed over the inventions of the Industrial Revolution. At age 12, Ada envisioned a flying
machine with the “form of a horse with a steam engine in the inside so contrived as to move an
immense pair of wings”. Introduced by her mentor to Charles Babbage, at age seventeen Ada
Lovelace became interested in the ‘Analytical Engine’, the invention the Mathematics professor was
working on.

B. Explore

Video Title:
1. Introduction To CyberEthics
YouTube Link:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74XncBZEnN4
Module Video Filename:
1. Week1_CyberEthics.mp4

C. Explain

Know the Rules of Cyberethics

"Cyber ethics" refers to the code of responsible behaviour on the Internet. Just as we are taught to
act responsibly in everyday life with lessons such as "Don't take what doesn't belong to you" and "Do
not harm others," we must act responsibly in the cyber world as well.
The basic rule is "Do not do something in cyberspace that you would consider wrong or illegal in
everyday life."
Considerations When Determining Responsible Behavior
 Do not use rude or offensive language.
 Do not cyberbully.
 Do not plagiarize.
 Do not break into someone else's computer.
 Do not use someone else's password.
 Do not attempt to infect or in any way try to make someone else's computer unusable.
 Adhere to copyright restrictions when downloading material from the Internet, including
software, games, movies, or music.

Ethics and Technology can be used as the main text in a course dedicated to ethical and social issues
in computing, or it can be used as a supplementary textbook for computer science courses in which
one or more ethics modules are included

D. Elaborate

Introduction

Before we propose a definition of cyberethics, it is important to note that the field of cyberethics can
be viewed as a branch of (applied) ethics. In Module 2, where we define ethics as “the study of
morality,” we provide a detailed account of what is meant by Before we propose a definition of
cyberethics, it is important to note that the field of cyberethics can be viewed as a branch of (applied)
ethics. In Module 2, where we define ethics as “the study of morality,” we provide a detailed account
of what is meant by morality and a moral system, and we also focus on some important aspects of
theoretical, as opposed to, applied ethics. For example, both ethical concepts and ethical theories are
also examined in detail. There, we also include a “Getting Started” section on how to engage in ethical
reasoning in general, as well as reasoning in the case of some specific moral dilemmas. In Module 1,
however, our main focus is on clarifying some key cyber and cyber-related terms that will be used
throughout the remaining chapters of this Module. For our purpose, cyberethics can be defined as the
study of moral, legal, and social issues involving cybertechnology. Cyberethics examines the impact of
cybertechnology on our social, legal, and moral systems, and it evaluates the social policies and laws
that have been framed in response to issues generated by its development and use. To grasp the
significance of these reciprocal relationships, it is important to understand what is meant by the term
cybertechnology.
Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 2 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

Cyberethics

Defined as the study of moral, legal, and social issues involving cybertechnology. Cyberethics
examines the impact of cybertechnology on our social, legal, and moral systems, and it evaluates the
social policies and laws that have been framed in response to issues generated by its development
and use. To grasp the significance of these reciprocal relationships, it is important to understand what
is meant by the term cybertechnology.

Many authors have used the term “computer ethics” to describe the field that examines moral issues
pertaining to computing and information technology (see, for example, Barger 2008; Johnson 2010).
Others use the expression “information ethics” (e.g., Capurro 2007) to refer to a cluster of ethical
concerns regarding the flow of information that is either enhanced or restricted by computer
technology.4 Because of concerns about ethical issues involving the Internet in particular, some have
also used the term “Internet ethics” (Langford 2000). Ethical issues examined in this textbook,
however, are not limited to the Internet; they also include privately owned computer networks and
interconnected communication technologies—i.e., technologies that we refer to collectively as
cybertechnology. Hence, we use “cyberethics” to capture the wide range of moral issues involving
cybertechnology.

Cybertechnology

Refers to a wide range of computing and communication devices, from stand-alone computers to
connected, or networked, computing and communication technologies. These technologies include,
but need not be limited to, devices such as “smart” phones, iPods, (electronic) “tablets,” personal
computers (desktops and laptops), and large mainframe computers. Networked devices can be
connected directly to the Internet, or they can be connected to other devices through one or more
privately owned computer networks. Privately owned networks, in turn, include local area networks
(LANs) and wide area networks (WANs). A LAN is a privately owned network of computers that span a
limited geographical area, such as an office building or a small college campus. WANs, on the other
hand, are privately owned networks of computers that are interconnected throughout a much
broader geographic region.

A synthesis of contemporary information and communications technologies, the Internet evolved

from an earlier United States Defense Department initiative (in the 1960s) known as the ARPANET.
Unlike WANs and LANs, which are privately owned computer networks, the Internet is generally
considered to be a public network, in the sense that much of the information available on the Internet
resides in “public space” and is thus available to anyone. The Internet, which should be differentiated
from the World Wide Web, includes several applications. The Web, based on hypertext transfer
protocol (HTTP), is one application; other applications include file transfer protocol (FTP), Telnet, and
e-mail. Because many users navigate the Internet by way of the Web, and because the majority of
users conduct their online activities almost exclusively on the Web portion of the Internet, it is very
easy to confuse the Web with the Internet. The Internet and privately owned computer networks,
such as WANs and LANs, are perhaps the most common and well-known examples of
cybertechnology. However, “cybertechnology” is used in this book to represent the entire range of
computing systems, from stand-alone computers to privately owned networks to the Internet itself.
“Cyberethics” refers to the study of moral, legal, and social issues involving those technologies.

The Cyberethics Evolution: Four Developmental Phases In Cybertechnology

In describing the key evolutionary phases of cybertechnology and cyberethics, we begin by noting that
the meaning of “computer” has evolved significantly since the 1940s. If you were to look up the
meaning of that word in a dictionary written before World War II, you would most likely discover that
a computer was defined as a person who calculated numbers. In the time period immediately
following World War II, the term “computer” came to be identified with a (calculating) machine as
opposed to a person (who calculated).7 By the 1980s, however, computers had shrunk in size
considerably and they were beginning to be understood more in terms of desktop machines (that
manipulated symbols as well as numbers), or as a new kind of medium for communication, rather
Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 3 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

than simply as machines that crunch numbers. As computers became increasingly connected to one
another, they came to be associated with metaphors such as the “information superhighway” and
cyberspace; today, many ordinary users tend to think about computers in terms of various Internet-
and Web-based applications made possible by cybertechnology.

In response to some social and ethical issues that were anticipated in connection with the use of
electronic computers, the field that we now call cyberethics had its informal and humble beginnings in
the late 1940s. It is interesting to note that during this period, when ENIAC (Electronic Numerical
Integrator and Calculator)—the first electronic computer, developed at the University of
Pennsylvania, became operational in 1946—some analysts confidently predicted that no more than
five or six computers would ever need to be built. For our purposes, the evolution of cyberethics can
be summarized in four distinct technological phases.

Phase 1 (1950s and 1960s)

In Phase 1, computing technology consisted mainly of huge mainframe computers, such as ENIAC,
that were “unconnected” and thus existed as stand-alone machines. One set of ethical and social
questions raised during this phase had to do with the impact of computing machines as “giant brains.”
Today, we might associate these kinds of questions with the field of artificial intelligence (or AI). The
following kinds of questions were introduced in Phase 1: Can machines think? If so, should we invent
thinking machines? If machines can be intelligent entities, what does this mean for our sense of self?
What does it mean to be human? Although networked computers had not yet come on to the scene,
work on the ARPANET—the Internet’s predecessor, which was funded by an agency in the United
States Defense Department—began during this phase, in the 1960s.

Phase 2 (1970s and 1980s)

In Phase 2, computing machines and communication devices in the commercial sector began to
converge. This convergence, in turn, introduced an era of computer/communications networks.
Mainframe computers, minicomputers, microcomputers, and personal computers could now be
linked together by way of one or more privately owned computer networks such as LANs and WANs
(see Section 1.1.1), and information could readily be exchanged between and among databases
accessible to networked computers. Ethical issues associated with this phase of computing included
concerns about personal privacy, intellectual property, and computer crime. Privacy concerns, which
had emerged during Phase 1 because of worries about the amount of personal information that could
be collected by government agencies and stored in a centralized government owned database, were
exacerbated because electronic records containing personal and confidential information could now
also easily be exchanged between two or more commercial databases in the private sector. Concerns
affecting intellectual property and proprietary information also emerged during this phase because
personal (desktop) computers could be used to duplicate proprietary software programs. And
concerns associated with computer crime appeared during this phase because individuals could now
use computing devices, including remote computer terminals, to break into and disrupt the computer
systems of large organizations.

Phase 3 (1990–Present)

During Phase 3, the Internet era, availability of Internet access to the general public has increased
significantly. This was facilitated, in no small part, by the development and phenomenal growth of the
World Wide Web in the 1990s. The proliferation of Internet and Web-based technologies has
contributed to some additional ethical concerns involving computing technology; for example, issues
of free speech, anonymity, jurisdiction, and trust have been hotly disputed during this phase. Should
Internet users be free to post any messages they wish on publicly accessible Web sites or even on
their own personal Web pages—i.e., is that a “right” that is protected by free speech or freedom of
expression? Should users be permitted to post anonymous messages on Web pages, or even be
allowed to navigate the Web anonymously or under the cover of a pseudonym? Issues of jurisdiction
also arose because there are no clear national or geographical boundaries in cyberspace; if a crime
occurs on the Internet, it is not always clear where—i.e., in which legal jurisdiction—it took place and
Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 4 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

thus it is unclear where it should be prosecuted. And as e-commerce emerged during this phase,
potential consumers initially had concerns about trusting online businesses with their financial and
personal information. Other ethical and social concerns that arose during Phase 3 include disputes
about the public vs. private aspects of personal information that has become increasingly available on
the Internet. Concerns of this type have been exacerbated by the amount of personal information
included on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, and on other kinds of interactive
Web-based forums (made possible by “Web 2.0” technology).

A computer was still essentially a “box,” i.e., a CPU, with one or more peripheral devices, such as a
video screen, keyboard, and mouse, serving as interfaces to that box. And computers were still
viewed as devices essentially external to humans, as things or objects “out there.” As cybertechnology
continues to evolve, however, it may no longer make sense to try to understand computers simply in
terms of objects or devices that are necessarily external to us.

Phase 4 (Present–Near Future)

Presently we are on the threshold of Phase 4, a point at which we have begun to experience an
unprecedented level of convergence of technologies. We have already witnessed aspects of
technological convergence beginning in Phase 2, where the integration of computing and
communication devices resulted in privately owned networked systems, as we noted above. And in
Phase 3, the Internet era, we briefly described the convergence of text, video, and sound technologies
on the Web, and we noted how the computer began to be viewed much more as a new kind of
medium than as a conventional type of machine. The convergence of information technology and
biotechnology in recent years has resulted in the emerging fields of bioinformatics and computational
genomics; this has also caused some analysts to question whether computers of the future will still be
silicon-based or whether some may also possibly be made of biological materials.

Today, computers are also becoming ubiquitous or pervasive; i.e., they are “everywhere” and they
permeate both our workplace and our recreational environments. Many of the objects that we
encounter in these environments are also beginning to exhibit what Philip Brey (2005) and others call
“ambient intelligence,” which enables “smart objects” to be connected to one another via wireless
technology. What other kinds of technological changes should we anticipate as research and
development continues in Phase 4? For one thing, computing devices will likely continue to become
more and more indistinguishable from many kinds of non-computing devices.

Table 1.1 Summary of Four Phases of Cyberethics

Phase Time Period Technological Features Associated Issues
1 1950s–1960s Stand-alone machines (large Artificial intelligence (AI), database
mainframe computers) privacy (“Big Brother”)
2 1970s–1980s Minicomputers and the Issues from Phase 1 plus concerns
ARPANET; desktop computers involving intellectual property and
interconnected via privately software piracy, computer crime, and
owned networks communications privacy
3 1990s–present Internet, World Wide Web, Issues from Phases 1 and 2 plus
and early “Web.2.0” concerns about free speech,
applications, environments, anonymity, legal jurisdiction,
and forums behavioural norms in virtual
communities
4 Present to near Convergence of information Issues from Phases 1–3 plus concerns
future and communication about artificial electronic agents
technologies with (“bots”) with decision-making
nanotechnology and capabilities, and developments in
biotechnology; increasing use nanocomputing, bioinformatics, and
of autonomous systems ambient intelligence

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 5 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

Cyberethics Issues Unique Ethical Issues

The claim that the use of cybertechnology has had a significant impact on our moral, legal, and social
systems. Some also believe, however, that cybertechnology has introduced new and unique moral
problems. Are any of these problems genuinely unique moral issues? There are two schools of
thought regarding this question.

The scenarios have any new ethical issues been introduced in these scenarios, or are the issues that
arise in each merely examples of existing ethical issues that have been exacerbated in some sense by
new technologies used to communicate and disseminate personal information (such as in blogs in the
Washingtonienne and Twitter scenarios), or to harass and bully someone (as in the Meier scenario)?
To see whether any new ethical issues arise because of cybertechnology in general, consider once
again the cyberbullying scenario involving Megan Meier.

Also consider issues having to do with scope and scale: an Internet user can bully multiple victims
simultaneously via the use of multiple “windows” on his or her computer screen or electronic device.
The bully can also harass victims who happen to live in states and nations that are geographically
distant from the bully. Bullying activities can now occur on a scale or order of magnitude that could
not have been realized in the preInternet era. More individuals can now engage in bullying behavior
because cybertechnology has made it easy, and, as a result, significantly more people can now
become the victims of bullies.

But do these factors support the claim that cybertechnology has introduced any new and unique
ethical issues? Walter Maner (2004) argues that computer use has generated a series of ethical issues
that (a) did not exist before the advent of computing, and (b) could not have existed if computer
technology had not been invented. Is there any evidence to support Maner’s claim? Next we consider
two scenarios that, initially at least, might suggest that some new ethical issues have been generated
by the use of cybertechnology.

The scenarios included in the chapter are opening section:

SCENARIO 1–4: Developing the Code for a Computerized Weapon System

Sally Bright, a recent graduate from Technical University, has accepted a position as a software
engineer for a company called CyberDefense, Inc. This company has a contract with the U.S. Defense
Department to develop and deliver applications for the U.S. military. When Sally reports to work on
her first day, she is assigned to a controversial project that is developing the software for a computer
system designed to deliver chemical weapons to and from remote locations. Sally is conflicted about
whether she can, given her personal values, agree to work on this kind of weapon delivery system,
which would not have been possible without computer technology.

SCENARIO 1–5: Digital Piracy

Harry Flick is an undergraduate student at Pleasantville State College. In many ways, Harry’s interests
are similar to those of typical students who attend his college. But Harry is also very fond of classic
movies, especially films that were made before 1950. DVD copies of these movies are difficult to find;
those that are available tend to be expensive to purchase, and very few are available for loan at
libraries. One day, Harry discovers a Web site that has several classic films (in digital form) freely
available for downloading. Since the movies are still protected by copyright, however, Harry has some
concerns about whether it would be permissible for him to download any of these films (even if only
for private use).

Distinguishing between Unique Technological Features and Unique Ethical Issues

Based on our analysis of the two scenarios in the preceding section, we might conclude that there is
nothing new or special about the kinds of moral issues associated with cybertechnology. In fact, some
philosophers have argued that we have the same old ethical issues reappearing in a new guise. But is
Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 6 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

such a view accurate? If we focus primarily on the moral issues themselves as moral issues, it would
seem that perhaps there is nothing new. Cyber-related concerns involving privacy, property, free
speech, etc., can be understood as specific expressions of core (traditional) moral notions, such as
autonomy, fairness, justice, responsibility, and respect for persons. However, if instead we focus more
closely on cybertechnology itself, we see that there are some interesting and possibly unique features
that distinguish this technology from earlier technologies. Maner has argued that computing
technology is “uniquely fast,” “uniquely complex,” and “uniquely coded.” But even if cybertechnology
has these unique features, does it necessarily follow that any of the moral questions associated with
that technology must also be unique? One would commit a logical fallacy if he or she concluded that
cyberethics issues must be unique simply because certain features or aspects of cybertechnology are
unique. The fallacy can be expressed in the following way:

An Alternative Strategy for Analyzing the Debate about the Uniqueness of Cyberethics Issues

Although it may be difficult to prove conclusively whether or not cybertechnology has generated any
new or unique ethical issues, we must not rule out the possibility that many of the controversies
associated with this technology warrant special consideration from an ethical perspective. But what,
exactly, is so different about issues involving computers and cybertechnology that makes them
deserving of special moral consideration? James Moor (2007) points out that computer technology,
unlike most previous technologies, is “logically malleable”; it can be shaped and molded to perform a
variety of functions. Because non-computer technologies are typically designed to perform some
particular function or task, they lack the universal or general-purpose characteristics that computing
technologies possess. For example, microwave ovens and DVD players are technological devices that
have been designed to perform specific tasks. Microwave ovens cannot be used to view DVDs, and DVD
players cannot be used to defrost, cook, or reheat food. However, a computer, depending on the
software used, can perform a range of diverse tasks: it can be instructed to behave as a video game, a
word processor, a spreadsheet, a medium to send and receive e-mail messages, or an interface to Web
sites. Hence, cybertechnology is extremely malleable.

A Policy Vacuum in Duplicating Computer Software

A critical policy vacuum, which also involved a conceptual muddle, emerged with the advent of personal
desktop computers (henceforth referred to generically as PCs). The particular vacuum arose because of
the controversy surrounding the copying of software. When PCs became commercially available, many
users discovered that they could easily duplicate software programs. They found that they could use
their PCs to make copies of proprietary computer programs such as word processing programs,
spreadsheets, and video games. Some users assumed that in making copies of these programs they
were doing nothing wrong. At that time there were no explicit laws to regulate the subsequent use and
distribution of software programs once they had been legally purchased by an individual or by an
institution. Although it might be difficult to imagine today, at one time software was not clearly
protected by either copyright law or the patent process.
Before we can fill the vacuum regarding software duplication with a coherent policy or law, we first have
to resolve a certain conceptual muddle by answering the question: what, exactly, is computer software?
Until we can clarify the concept of software itself, we cannot frame a coherent policy as to whether or
not we should allow the free duplication of software. Currently there is still much confusion, as well as
considerable controversy, as to how laws concerning the exchange (and, in effect, duplication) of
proprietary software over the Internet should be framed.

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 7 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

Consider the controversies surrounding the original Napster Web site and the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA), in the late 1990s, regarding the free exchange of music over the Internet.
Proponents on both sides of this dispute experienced difficulties in making convincing arguments for
their respective positions due, in no small part, to confusion regarding the nature and the status of
information (digitized music in the form of MP3 files) being exchanged between Internet users and the
technology (P2P systems) that facilitated this exchange. Although cybertechnology has made it possible
to exchange MP3 files, there is still debate, and arguably a great deal of confusion as well, about
whether doing so should necessarily be illegal. Until the conceptual confusions or muddles underlying
arguments used in the Napster vs. RIAA case in particular, and about the nature of P2P file-sharing
systems in general, are resolved, it is difficult to frame an adequate policy regarding the exchange of
MP3 files in P2P transactions.

Cyberethics As A Branch Of Applied Ethics: Three Distinct Perspectives

Cyberethics, as a field of study, can be understood as a branch of applied ethics. Applied ethics, as
opposed to theoretical ethics, examines practical ethical issues. It does so by analyzing those issues from
the vantage point of one or more ethical theories. Whereas ethical theory is concerned with establishing
logically coherent and consistent criteria in the form of standards and rules for evaluating moral
problems, the principal aim of applied ethics is to analyze specific moral problems themselves through
the application of ethical theory. As such, those working in fields of applied ethics, or practical ethics,
are not inclined to debate some of the finer points of individual ethical theories. Instead, their interest in
ethical theory is primarily with how one or more theories can be successfully applied to the analysis of
specific moral problems that they happen to be investigating.

Understanding cyberethics as a field of applied ethics that examines moral issues pertaining to
cybertechnology is an important first step. But much more needs to be said about the perspectives that
interdisciplinary researchers bring to their analysis of the issues that make up this relatively new field.
Most scholars and professionals conducting research in this field of applied ethics have proceeded from
one of three different perspectives— professional ethics, philosophical ethics, or sociological/descriptive
ethics. Gaining a clearer understanding of what is meant by each perspective is useful at this point.

Perspective #1: Cyberethics as a Field of Professional Ethics

According to those who view cyberethics primarily as a branch of professional ethics, the field can best
be understood as identifying and analyzing issues of ethical responsibility for computer and information-
technology (IT) professionals. Among the cyberethics issues considered from this perspective are those
having to do with the computer/IT professional’s role in designing, developing, and maintaining
computer hardware and software systems. For example, suppose a programmer discovers that a
software product she has been working on is about to be released for sale to the public even though
that product is unreliable because it contains “buggy” software. Should she blow the whistle?

1. Professional Ethics and the Computer Science Practitioner

Gotterbarn’s view about what the proper focus of computer ethics research and inquiry
should be is shared by other practitioners in the discipline of computer science. However,
some of those practitioners, as well as many philosophers and social scientists, believe that
Gotterbarn’s conception of computer ethics as simply a field of professional ethics is too
narrow. In fact, some who identify themselves as computer professionals or as “information
professionals,” and who are otherwise sympathetic to Gotterbarn’s overall attention to
professional ethics issues, believe that a broader model is needed. For example, Elizabeth
Buchanan (2004), in describing the importance of analyzing ethical issues in the “information
professions,” suggests that some nonprofessional ethics issues must also be examined
because of the significant impact they have on non-information professionals, including

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 8 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

ordinary computer users. Consider that these issues can also affect people who have never
used a computer.

2. Applying the Professional Ethics Model to Specific Scenarios

It is fairly easy to see how the professional ethics model can be used to analyze issues
involving professional responsibility that directly impact computer/IT professionals. For
example, issues concerned with the development and implementation of critical software
would fit closely with the professional model. But can that model be extended to include
cases that may only affect computer professionals indirectly?

Perspective #2: Cyberethics as a Field of Philosophical Ethics

What, exactly, is philosophical ethics and how is it different from professional ethics? Since philosophical
methods and tools are also used to analyze issues involving professional ethics, any attempt to
distinguish between the two might seem arbitrary, perhaps even odd. For our purposes, however, a
useful distinction can be drawn between the two fields because of the approach each takes in
addressing ethical issues. Whereas professional ethics issues typically involve concerns of responsibility
and obligation affecting individuals as members of a certain profession, philosophical ethics issues
include broader concerns— social policies as well as individual behavior—that affect virtually everyone
in society. Cybertechnology-related moral issues involving privacy, security, property, and free speech
can affect everyone, including individuals who have never even used a computer.

A. Methodology and Philosophical Ethics

Philip Brey (2004) notes that the standard methodology used by philosophers to conduct research
in applied ethics has three distinct stages in that an ethicist must

1. Identify a particular controversial practice as a moral problem,

2. Describe and analyze the problem by clarifying concepts and examining the factual data
associated with that problem,

3. Apply moral theories and principles in the deliberative process in order to reach a position
about the particular moral issue.

B. Applying the Method of Philosophical Ethics to Specific Scenarios

To see how the philosophical ethics perspective of cyberethics can help us to analyze a cluster of
moral issues affecting cybertechnology, we revisit the Washingtonienne, Twitter, and Meier
scenarios introduced in the opening section of this chapter. In applying the philosophical ethics
model to these scenarios, our first task is to identify one or more moral issues associated with
each. We have already seen that these scenarios illustrate a wide range of ethical issues. For
example, we saw that ethical issues associated with the Washingtonienne scenario include free
speech, defamation, confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy with respect to blogs and blogging.
But what kinds of policy vacuums and conceptual muddles, if any, arise in this case? For one thing,
both the nature of a blog and the practices surrounding blogging are relatively new. Thus, not
surprisingly, we have very few clear and explicit policies affecting the “blogosphere.” To consider
why this is so, we begin by asking: what, exactly, is a blog? For example, is it similar to a
newspaper or a periodical (such as the New York Times or TIME Magazine), which is held to
standards of accuracy and truth? Or is a blog more like a tabloid (such as the National Inquirer), in
which case there is little expectation of accuracy? Our answers to these questions may determine
whether bloggers should be permitted to post anything they wish, without concern for the
accuracy of any of their remarks that may be false or defamatory, or both? At present, there are
no clear answers to these and related questions surrounding blogs. So, it would seem that explicit
policies are needed to regulate blogs and bloggers.

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 9 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

Perspective #3: Cyberethics as a Field of Sociological/Descriptive Ethics

The two perspectives on cyberethics that we have examined thus far—professional ethics and
philosophical ethics—can both be understood as normative inquiries into applied ethics issues.
Normative inquiries or studies, which focus on evaluating and prescribing moral systems, can be
contrasted with descriptive inquiries or studies. Descriptive ethics is, or aims to be, non-evaluative in
approach; typically, it describes particular moral systems and sometimes also reports how members of
various groups and cultures view particular moral issues. This kind of analysis of ethical and social issues
is often used by sociologists and social scientists; hence, our use of the expression
“sociological/descriptive perspective” to analyze this methodological framework.

 Descriptive vs. Normative Inquiries

Whereas descriptive investigations provide us with information about what is the case, normative
inquiries evaluate situations from the vantage point of questions having to do with what ought to
be the case. Those who approach cyberethics from the perspective of descriptive ethics often
describe sociological aspects of a particular moral issue, such as the social impact of a specific
technology on a particular community or social group. For example, one way of analyzing moral
issues surrounding the “digital divide” is first to describe the problem in terms of its impact on
various socio-demographic groups involving social class, race, and gender. We can investigate
whether, in fact, fewer poor people, non-whites, and women have access to cybertechnology
than wealthy and middle-class persons, whites, and men. In this case, the investigation is one that
is basically descriptive in character. If we were then to inquire whether the lack of access to
technology for some groups relative to others was unfair, we would be engaging in a normative
inquiry. For example, a normative investigation of this issue would question whether certain
groups should have more access to cybertechnology than they currently have. The following
scenario illustrates an approach to a particular cyberethics issue via the perspective of
sociological/descriptive ethics.

 Some Benefits of Using the Sociological/Descriptive Approach to Analyze Cyberethics Issues

Why is the examination of cyberethics issues from the sociological/descriptive ethics perspective
useful? Huff and Finholt (1994) suggest that focusing on descriptive aspects of social issues can
help us to better understand many of the normative features and implications. In other words,
when we understand the descriptive features of the social effects of a particular technology, the
normative ethical questions become clearer. So, Huff and Finholt believe that analyzing the social
impact of cybertechnology from a sociological/descriptive perspective can better prepare us for
our subsequent analysis of practical ethical issues affecting our system of policies and laws.

 Applying the Sociological/Descriptive Ethics Approach to Specific Scenarios

Consider how someone approaching cyberethics issues from the perspective of

sociological/descriptive ethics might analyze the Washingtonienne and Meier scenarios, described
above.

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 10 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

Table 1.2 Summary off Cyberethics Perspectives

Type of Perspective Associated Disciplines Issues Examined

Professional Computer Science Professional responsibility
Engineering System reliability/safety
Library/Information Codes of conduct
Science
Philosophical Philosophy Privacy and anonymity
Law Intellectual property
Free speech
Sociological/Descriptive Sociology/Behavioral Impact of cybertechnology on
Sciences governmental/financial/educational
institutions and socio-demographic
socio groups

A Comprehensive Cyberethics Methodology

The three different perspectives of cyberethics described in the preceding section might suggest that
three different kinds of methodologies are needed to analyze the range of issues examined in this
textbook. The goal of this section, however, is to show that a single, comprehensive method can be
constructed, and that this method will be adequate in guiding us in our analysis of cyberethics issues.

1. Identify an ethical problem

2. Describe and analyze the problem in conceptual and factual terms
3. Apply ethical theories and principles in the deliberative process

Brey believes that while the (revised) standard model might work well in many fields of applied ethics,
such as medical ethics, business ethics, and bioethics, it does not always fare well in cyb
cyberethics. Brey
argues that the standard method, when used to identify ethical aspects of cybertechnology, tends to
focus almost exclusively on the uses of that technology. As such, the standard method fails to pay
sufficient attention to certain features tthat
hat may be embedded in the technology itself, such as design
features that may also have moral implications.

A “Disclosive” Method for Cyberethics

Figure 1.1 illustrates some differences between morally opaque and morally transparent features. Brey
argues that an adequate methodology for computer ethics must first identify, or “disclose,” features
that, without proper probing and analysis, would go unnoticed as having moral implications. Thus, an
extremely important first step in Brey’s “disclosive method” is to reveal moral values embedded in the
various features and practices associated with cybertechnology itself.

Figure 1.3 Embedded technological fea

features
tures having moral implications

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 11 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

An Inter-disciplinary and Multilevel Method for Analyzing Cyberethics Issues

Brey’s disclosive model is interdisciplinary because it requires that computer scientists, philosophers,
and social scientists collaborate. It is also multilevel because conducting computer ethics research
requires three levels of analysis:
 disclosure level
 theoretical level
 application level

Table 1.3 Brey’s Disclosive Model

Level Disciplines Involved Task/Function

Disclosure Computer Science Disclose embedded features in computer technology that

Social Science (optional) have moral import
Theoretical Philosophy Test newly disclosed features against standard ethical
theories
Application Computer Science Apply standard or newly revised/formulated ethical
Philosophy Social Science theories to the issues

Table 1.3 describes the academic disciplines and the corresponding tasks and functions involved in
Brey’s disclosive model.

A Comprehensive Strategy For Approaching Cyberethics Issues

The following methodological scheme, which expands on the original three-step scheme introduced in
Section 1.4.2, is intended as a strategy to assist you in identifying and analyzing the specific cyberethics
issues examined in this book. Note, however, that this procedure is not intended as a precise algorithm
for resolving those issues in some definitive manner. Rather, its purpose is to guide you in the
identification, analysis, and deliberation processes by summarizing key points that we have examined in
Module 1.

Step 1. Identify a practice involving cybertechnology, or a feature of that technology, that is

controversial from a moral perspective.
1a. Disclose any hidden or opaque features.
1b. Assess any descriptive components of the ethical issue via the sociological implications it
has for relevant social institutions and socio-demographic groups.
1c. In analyzing the normative elements of that issue, determine whether there are any specific
guidelines, i.e., social policies or ethical codes, that can help resolve the issue.
1d. If the normative ethical issue cannot be resolved through the application of existing policies,
codes of conduct, etc., go to Step 2.

Step 2. Analyze the ethical issue by clarifying concepts and situating it in a context.
2a. If a policy vacuums exists, go to Step 2b; otherwise, go to Step 3.
2b. Clear up any conceptual muddles involving the policy vacuum and go to Step 3.

Step 3. Deliberate on the ethical issue. The deliberation process requires two stages.
3a. Apply one or more ethical theories to the analysis of the moral issue, and then go to Step 3b.
3b. Justify the position you reached by evaluating it via the standards and criteria for successful
logic argumentation.

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 12 of 13
 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER STUDIES
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Course Modules
CS330 – Social Issues and Professional Practice
3rd Year – 2nd Semester

E. Evaluate

ASSESSMENT:
Instructions: You may write your answer on the Answer Sheet (AS) provided in this module.

Identification. (2-points each)

1. Examines the impact of cybertechnology on our social, legal, and moral systems, and it
evaluates the social policies and laws that have been framed in response to issues generated
by its development and use.
2. Evaluate situations from the vantage point of questions having to do with what ought to be
the case.
3. Refers to a wide range of computing and communication devices, from stand-alone
computers to connected, or networked, computing and communication technologies.
4. The distinct perspectives field can best be understood as identifying and analyzing issues of
ethical responsibility for computer and information-technology (IT) professionals
5. A point at which we have begun to experience an unprecedented level of convergence of
technologies
6. On what year the computing machines and communication devices in the commercial sector
began to converge?
7. It is fairly easy to see how the professional ethics model can be used to analyze issues
involving professional responsibility that directly impact computer/IT professionals
8. A Cyberethics Perspectives Issues where Privacy and anonymity Intellectual property Free
speech.
9. An interdisciplinary and multilevel method that requires the computer scientists,
philosophers, and social scientists collaborate.
10. A synthesis of contemporary information and communications technologies, the Internet
evolved from an earlier United States Defense Department initiative (in the 1960s) known
as?

References:

1. Trivia
https://www.triviapeople.com/519-2/
https://eklektika.pl/en/blog/7-famous-female-programmers-you-probably-havent-heard-of/
https://www.cisecurity.org/daily-tip/know-the-rules-of-cyber-ethics/
2. Introductions and Lectures
https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/university-of-memphis/ethics-and-professional-
development/other/book-solution-ethics-and-technology-herman-t-tavani-chapters-1-
12/550198/view
https://quizlet.com/184698587/chapter-1-introduction-to-cyberethics-concepts-perspectives-
and-methodological-frameworks-flash-cards/

Facilitated By:
Name :
MS Teams Account (email) :
Smart Phone Number :

Prepared and Validated By: Instructor Ms. Elissa P. Rivero | Dean Manuel Luis C. Delos Santos, MSCS Page 13 of 13