Cyber ​​ethics

The invention of the camera at the end of the 19th century spurred the emergence of the same ethical debate that is being conducted about the Internet at the present time. During the 1890 Harvard Law Review workshop, Warren and Brandeis defined confidentiality ethically and morally as something “critical to self-esteem and individuality.” Confidentiality is also necessary for a sense of independence - “the feeling that there is an area in a person’s life that is under his or her control, an area free from outside intrusion. Losing privacy can even endanger human health. ” ^[1] After a hundred years, the Internet and the dissemination of personal data through governments ^[2] and e-commerce is a phenomenon that requires a new round of ethical debate, including confidentiality.

Confidentiality can be divided into restricting others' access to individuality with “three elements: secrecy, anonymity and privacy” ^[3] . Secrecy is to protect personalized information from free distribution. Anonymity is in the individual’s right to protection from unwanted attention. Solitude - in the absence of physical proximity of a person with others.

People provide personal information during transactions and registration on various services. Ethical business practices involve protecting customer privacy by hiding information that may contribute to the loss of privacy, anonymity and privacy. Credit card information, social security numbers, phone numbers, mother’s maiden names, and addresses are freely collected and transmitted over the Internet, which can also lead to a loss of privacy.

Fraud and impersonation of another person are examples of malicious acts that are committed through direct or indirect misuse of personal information. Due to the availability of this information on the Internet, the number of crimes related to identity theft is growing rapidly. For example, 7 million Americans were victims of identity theft in 2002, and almost 12 million in 2011, which makes this crime the fastest growing ^[4] . Public records of search engines and databases are the main culprits of the growth of cybercrime . Listed below are a few recommendations that can help protect network databases from disseminating classified information about employees:

1. Do not include secret unique identifiers in database records, such as insurance certificate numbers, dates of birth, hometowns, and mother’s maiden names.
2. Do not publish classified phone numbers.
3. Make the most accessible and understandable way in which people can delete information about themselves from the database.
4. Block Reverse Insurance Certificate Number Lookup Services ^[5] .

These days, data warehouses are used to collect and store a large amount of personal data and consumer transaction history. They can store large amounts of consumer data for an unlimited amount of time. The main structures contributing to the violation of secrecy include databases, cookies , spyware ^[5] .

Some may say that data warehouses should not have equal security. Be that as it may, the truth is that enough corporate information can be extracted from corporate websites and social networks for reverse searches. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to ethical issues related to how protected data appears in the public domain.

As a result, the identity theft business is booming, and companies like LifeLock and JPMorgan Chase make a profit by selling protection against this type of crime.

The ethical debate has long concerned the concept of ownership . It has caused many clashes in the field of cyber ethics. Disputes regarding ownership arise when ownership is violated or ambiguous.

Intellectual Property Rights

The ever-increasing speed of the Internet and the emergence of compression technologies such as mp3 have opened the way for peer- to -peer file sharing , a technology that allows users to anonymously send files to each other that appeared in programs like Napster and are now used in BitTorrent- like data transfer protocols . Most of the music transmitted was copyrighted, which made it illegal to transmit to others. Whether it is ethical to forward copyrighted media is another matter.

Proponents of unlimited file sharing argue that sharing gave people more free and faster access to media files, positively impacted the emergence of new artists and reduced the cost of media transfer (which entails less harm to the environment). Proponents of file sharing restrictions object and say that it is necessary to protect the income of artists and other people working on media creation. In part, this argument is disputed by pointing to the small amount of money received by artists from the legitimate sale of their work.

Similar debate can be observed on the issue of intellectual property in relation to software . Positions in dispute: for closed source codes of software distributed under license , and for free access to source codes of software ^[6] . The argument of the first position may be the fact that companies will not invest in development for weeks and months if there is no incentive in the form of sales revenue and license fees. The second argument is “ standing on the shoulders of giants ” is much cheaper when these giants do not have intellectual property rights. Some proponents of open access believe that all programs should be accessible to anyone who wishes to study them.

Technical Copyright Protection

With the advent of information security technology software, new problems have arisen related to the question of whether it is ethical to circumvent these tools. Some consider TSZAP crackers as protectors of user rights, allowing blind people to create audio books from received PDF files, and to other people - to copy legally purchased music to CD or transfer it to other computers. Others see this as only a violation of the rights of intellectual property owners, opening the way for non-refundable use of protected media.

Security has long been a topic of ethical debate. Is it right to protect the public good in the first place, or is the right of an individual to be given priority? The discussion continues on the border between the first and second and the search for the right compromises. With the increase in the number of people connected to the Internet, as well as an increase in the amount of personal data available, the risk of identity theft, cybercrime and hacking increases. This leads to discussion about who has the right to regulate the Internet in the interest of security.

Due to the accessibility and some collective nature of the Internet, one has to deal with problems of accuracy, for example, the question of who is responsible for the accuracy of the information available on the network. From an ethical point of view, this includes disputes over who may be allowed to replenish the information and who should be responsible for errors or false information. This begs the question of how the injured party, if any, will be compensated for the damage and under whose jurisdiction the offense will be.

The topics of accessibility, censorship and information filtering raise a lot of ethical issues related to cyber ethics. The presence of these issues continues to cast doubt on our understanding of confidentiality and secrecy, as well as our participation in society. For centuries, various devices have been invented in the name of protection and safety. Nowadays, applications for these purposes are presented in the form of software that filters domains and content, so that they become less accessible unless various tricks are applied, or, at the personal level and business level, in the form of free content filters . Internet censorship and filtering are used to control and suppress the publication of information or access to it. Legal issues here are similar to those of conventional censorship and filtering, and the arguments used in disputes over conventional censorship apply to network censorship. Or rather, to give people free access to information or to protect them from what management considers harmful, obscene or illegal? Of great concern is the problem of access to a network of minors. Many online activist groups have emerged with the goal of raising awareness and controlling the access of minors to the Internet.

Censorship and filtering problems arise both at low levels (for example, when a company restricts its employees' access to cyberspace by blocking specific websites that are considered to reduce labor productivity) and at high levels (when a government creates a firewall that censors and filters specific information, available on the network outside the country to citizens and everyone who is in the territory of this state). One of the best-known examples when a country controls access to the network is the Golden Shield project , also called the Great Chinese Firewall, a censorship and oversight project established and managed by the PRC. Another example is the process of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism and the Society of French Jewish Students versus Yahoo! in the United States and France, in which the French Court ruled that “access by French Internet users to an online auction that displays Nazi symbols was a violation of French laws and an insult to the country's“ generational memory ”, and the display of such objects (for example exhibitions of uniforms, orders or emblems similar to those worn or displayed by the Nazis in France constitute a violation of article R645-1 of the Criminal Code and, as a result, are considered a threat to public order ” ^[7] . Since this court ruling, many websites have been forced to reckon with the laws of countries that have access to them.

Freedom of Information

The freedom of information, that is, freedom of speech , and at the same time freedom to seek, receive and transmit information, raises the question of who or what has power in cyberspace. The right to freedom of information usually depends on the restrictions that affect the affected country, society or culture. There are three points of view on this issue in relation to the Internet. The first is that the Internet is a form of media access to which residents of a state have access and which, therefore, each state must regulate itself within its jurisdiction. The second is as follows: “Governments of the Industrial World ... your power does not extend to where we are going [on the Internet] ... We do not have an elected government, and most likely will not ... You do not have a moral right to govern us, you do not have such methods coercion, which we would have reason to fear ” ^[8] . A third party believes that the Internet is sweeping away all tangible borders, such as the borders of states, so power should be transferred to an international body, because what is legal in one country may be illegal in another. ^[9]

Digital Barrier

A separate issue in ethical issues related to freedom of information is the so-called digital barrier. It refers to the socio-economic gap between those with access to digital and information technologies, such as cyberspace, and those with limited or no access. This difference in opportunity between countries or regions of the world is called the global digital barrier.

Sexuality and pornography

Sexuality in terms of sexual orientation, adultery, sex with or between minors, and pornography have always provoked ethical debates. All this, one way or another, is reflected in the network. The historical development of the network pornography industry and user-generated pornography has been studied in terms of their resonance ^[10] . Some of the biggest cyber-political debates concern the regulation, distribution, and accessibility of pornography on the web . Hardcore pornography is controlled by governments through laws regarding the age at which they can be accessed and what forms are acceptable. The accessibility of pornography on the web casts doubt on the power and issues of regulation ^[11] , especially with regard to child pornography ^[12] , which is illegal in most countries, as well as pornography containing violent or bestiality scenes.

Gambling

Gambling is a constant topic of ethical debate, in which some consider the games to be inherently harmful and advocate a ban, while others support the absence of legal interference. “Between these opposing positions lies a huge number of opinions about what types of gambling governments should allow and where they can be held. Studying the issue of gambling compels senior government officials to discuss issues such as addiction, taxation, high school lifestyle, professional and university sports, organized crime, neurobiology, suicide, divorce, and religion ” ^[13] . Due to these disagreements, gambling is either prohibited or strictly controlled at the local or national level. The availability of the Internet and its ability to freely cross geographical boundaries led to the spread of illegal online gambling, often in the form of offshore operations ^[14] . Over the years, the number of online gambling, whether legal or not, has grown exponentially, which has led to regulatory difficulties. This tremendous growth has raised some people's questions regarding the ethical existence of online gambling.

The following organizations are of interest to the debate on cyber ethics:

• International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP);
• Association for Computer Machinery , Special Interest Group : Computers and Society (SIGCAS);
• Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC);
• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);
• International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE);
• Directions and Implications in Advanced Computing (DIAC);
• The Center for Computing and Social Responsibility (CCSR);
• Cyber-Rights and Cyber-liberties;
• International Journal of Cyber ​​Ethics in Education (IJCEE).

Below are four of the most interesting examples of codes of ethics for IT professionals.

RFC 1087

В RFC 1087 , созданном в январе 1989 года, Совет по архитектуре Интернета определяет деятельность как неэтичную и неприемлемую, если в её процессе:

1. Преследуется цель получить неразрешённый доступ к ресурсам Интернета.
2. Интернет не используется как предполагается.
3. Расточаются ресурсы (человеческие, компьютерные).
4. Нарушается целостность компьютерной информации.
5. Подвергается риску конфиденциальность пользователей.

Кодекс справедливого использования информации

The Code for the Fair Use of Information ^[15] is based on five principles that emphasize the requirements for accounting systems. These requirements were introduced by the US Department of Health and Human Services in 1973.

1. There should be no systems that accumulate personal information, the very fact of which is a secret.
2. Each person should be able to control what information about him is stored in the system and how it is used.
3. Each person should be able to prevent the use of information collected about him for one purpose, for another purpose.
4. Everyone should be able to adjust information about themselves.
5. Each organization engaged in the creation, maintenance, use or dissemination of arrays of information containing personal data should ensure the use of these data only for the purposes for which they were collected, and take measures against their use for other purposes. ^[sixteen]

The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics

The Institute of Computer Ethics, a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote technology from an ethical point of view, brings these rules as a guide to computer ethics:

1. Do not use your computer to the detriment of others.
2. Do not interfere with other users' computer work.
3. Do not look into other people's computer files.
4. Do not use a computer for theft.
5. Do not use a computer for perjury.
6. Do not use or copy programs for which you did not pay.
7. Do not use someone else's computer without permission.
8. Do not appropriate the fruits of the intellectual labor of others.
9. Think about the social implications of the program you wrote.
10. Use your computer consciously and respectfully towards others.

Code of Ethics (ISC) ²

(ISC) ² , an organization committed to professional certification of computer security professionals, defines its code of ethics with the following provisions:

1. Act honestly, fairly, responsibly, within the framework of the law. Protect global well-being.
2. Work hard, provide quality services and develop security.
3. Encourage more research: train, guide, and pay tribute to certification.
4. Avoid unsafe practices, protect and strengthen the integrity of public infrastructures.
5. Adhere to agreements, vowels and unspoken. Give reasonable advice.
6. Avoid any conflict of interest, respect the faith of other people in yourself, take on only the work that you can do.
7. Keep and update your skills, do not participate in events that could harm the reputation of other professionals. ^[sixteen]

• Information law
• Information Ethics
• Computer ethics
• International Association for the Protection of Freedom of Speech
• Information Technology Crimes
• Net neutrality
• Digital Rights
• E-democracy

• Website Association for Computer Machinery, Special Interest Group: Computers and Society
• International Center for Information Ethics Website
• Website The Center for Computing and Social Responsibility
• Electronic Frontier Foundation Website
• Website Safer Internet Center which includes Awareness Node, Helpline and Hotline
• Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties Website
• IEEE Website
• ACM Website
• ISC ² site
• Internet Architecture Board Site
• International Journal of Cyber ​​Ethics in Education
• I will sew L.J. On the computer code of ethics for Russian institutes and universities
• Unofficial translation of the draft Code of Ethics for the information society