Book contents
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgment
- 1 Next-Generation Ethics
- 2 Ethical Distinctions for Building Your Ethical Code
- Part I Technology
- Part II Business Enterprises
- Part III Engineering
- Part IV Society
- 21 Topics in Next-Generation Ethics
- 22 Techno Innovations: The Role of Ethical Standards, Law and Regulation, and the Public Interest
- 23 Evolutionary Ethics: A Potentially Helpful Framework in Engineering a Better Society
- 24 Topics in Next-Generation Medical Ethics
- 25 Next-Generation Ethical Development of Medical Devices
- 26 Looking Back to Go Forward: The Ethics of Journalism in a Social Media Age
- 27 Social Media Ethics 2.0
- 28 Artificial Intelligence, People, and Society
- 29 Ethics in Cyberspace: Freedom, Rights, and Cybersecurity
- 30 Next-Generation Religion and Ethics
- Index
- References
29 - Ethics in Cyberspace: Freedom, Rights, and Cybersecurity
from Part IV - Society
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgment
- 1 Next-Generation Ethics
- 2 Ethical Distinctions for Building Your Ethical Code
- Part I Technology
- Part II Business Enterprises
- Part III Engineering
- Part IV Society
- 21 Topics in Next-Generation Ethics
- 22 Techno Innovations: The Role of Ethical Standards, Law and Regulation, and the Public Interest
- 23 Evolutionary Ethics: A Potentially Helpful Framework in Engineering a Better Society
- 24 Topics in Next-Generation Medical Ethics
- 25 Next-Generation Ethical Development of Medical Devices
- 26 Looking Back to Go Forward: The Ethics of Journalism in a Social Media Age
- 27 Social Media Ethics 2.0
- 28 Artificial Intelligence, People, and Society
- 29 Ethics in Cyberspace: Freedom, Rights, and Cybersecurity
- 30 Next-Generation Religion and Ethics
- Index
- References
Summary
The study of cyberethics represents an evolution of computer ethics. When the computer first appeared it was seen as a “revolutionary machine,” because of the scale of its activities and its capability to “solve” certain problems with the help of sophisticated software. Attention was soon focused on the disruptive potential of databases, vexing questions about software ownership, and the “hacker ethic.” Traditional moral concepts and values such as responsibility, privacy, and freedom had to be creatively adapted to this new reality (Johnson & Nissenbaum, 1995).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Next-Generation EthicsEngineering a Better Society, pp. 444 - 458Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Andriotis, A. (2017, September 27). Equifax chief quits amid hacking crisis. The Wall Street Journal, A1–2.Google Scholar
Apple. (2015). Privacy. Retrieved from www.apple.com./privacy/government-information-requestsGoogle Scholar
Balkin, J. (2005). Digital speech and democratic culture. In Moore, A. (Ed.), Information ethics: Privacy, property, and power (pp. 297–354). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Benner, K. (2016, February 23). Narrow focus may aid FBI in Apple case. The New York Times, B1, B6.Google Scholar
Borgmann, A. (1992). Crossing the postmodern divide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (2016). Between truth and power. In Hildebrandt, M. (Ed.). Information, freedom, and property (pp. 57–80) New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. (2015, December 24). The Debate over encryption. The Wall Street Journal, A11.Google Scholar
Comey, J. (2014). Going dark: Are technology, privacy and public safety on a collision course? Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-darkGoogle Scholar
Couto, A. (2008). Copyright and freedom of expression: A philosophical map. In Gossieres, A. & Strowel, A. (Eds.), Intellectual property and theories of justice (pp. 33–51). New York, NY: MacMillan Palgrave.Google Scholar
De Sola Pool, I. (1984). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Himma, K. (2007). Justifying property protection: Why the interests of content creators usually win over everyone else’s. In Rooksby, E. & Weckert, J. (Eds.), Information technology and social justice (pp. 47–68). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. (1999). Recoding intellectual property and overlooked audience interests. Texas Law Review, 77, 923.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. & Nissenbaum, H. (1995). Introduction, 1–12 computer ethics and social values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Koepsell, D. & Inglott, P. (2016). ICT’s architecture of freedom. In Hildebrandt, M. & van den Berg, B. (Eds.), Information, Freedom, and Property: The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (pp. 109–132). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merges, R. (2011). Justifying intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mims, C. (2016, February 18). Apple CEO Cook’s risky encryption strategy, The Wall Street Journal, B1.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. (1995). City of bits: Space, place and infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Reno v. ACLU (1997). 521 U.S. 844.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Nicas, J. & McMillan, R. (2016, February 18). Newer phones aren’t easy to crack. The Wall Street Journal, A6.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D., et al. (2016, September). Privacy and cybersecurity research briefing. Networked policy series, Cambridge, MA: Berkman Klein Center.Google Scholar
Sorkin, A. (2016, February 23). When the moral high ground lacks clear boundaries. The New York Times, B1, B6.Google Scholar
Spinello, R. A. (2017). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace (6th edition). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
Vallor, S. (2015). Social networking and ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (2009). Could there be a right to own intellectual property? Law and Philosophy, 28(4), 393–427.Google Scholar
Yahoo v. LICRA 169 F. Supp 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001).Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by