Does technology really present new ethical issues?

Interesting post and responses. What about the other side though? As consumers we use data, even the so-called 'big data', when we make decisions. I was shopping for a new home - I never felt I needed an expert Realtor as I searched because everything I needed I could get myself online. I could search price history, sales history, ownership history, the values of homes in the neighborhood, what they all paid, sold for, and constructed for - even the raw land cost. I was offering $100,000 less for homes and was being turned down left and right - most of those homes are still for sale 4 months later - but someone felt they were worth more. With the data at hand, I felt otherwise. Is it unethical for the sellers to price their homes $100,000 more then the value? Is it unethical for a Realtor to set that price? Maybe - maybe not - it's worth what someone is willing to pay, but with my use of available data I finally bought a home for more than $100,000 in savings (then listed).

I did not personally use analytics and I did not personally gather every bit of data/information to make my case; someone else did (realtor.com, zillow etc); but I used what was available to maximize my savings just like apartment investors use data to generate cost/value.

So I think that data mining and use of data to generate or save money is a double-edge sword....like anything else, it depends on if you are wielding it, or if someone else is.

The answer is absolutely yes. Technology, by definition, is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. If the practical purpose is unethical then technology by design can be unethical.

On the other hand, technology introduced for ethical purpose can be misused for non-ethical purposes.

In terms of this specific. Of course data intelligence can be used for unethical purposes. What is of real issue is when someone uses a device or application and unbeknown to them, as a bi-product of their use, they are providing data for unethical use.

Technology is not inherently unethical (unless specifically designed with unethical intention. After the fact, that same 'bad' technology may also have a potentially 'good' purpose.) A knife can be used to prepare a fantastic meal or used to stab someone. Severe yes, but the knife itself (ancient technology, but technology nonetheless) is not unethical.

Ethics doesn't come into play until after the technology is controlled by an unethical entity. An unethical entity will always seek whatever resources or technology that are available to facilitate and expedite it's unethical behavior.

The more flexible and scalable a technology is, the more likely it is to be used for unethical as well as ethical purposes. Perhaps the more significant question is in how does new technology get monitored and policed to reduce the possibility of unethical or not fully thought out use without inhibiting the potential good uses of it?

When a technologies potential for destructive results outweigh it's benefits, then perhaps it ought to be more carefully monitored and policed. This cannot be a black and white decision for often a current technology's uses may be completely different than it's future implementations. e.g. consider drugs designed/discovered for one purpose, years later discovering new, different and better uses for the same old shelved drug (perhaps shelved because it was replaced by something else or had more side effects than benefits for the original purpose.)

The thing that I've noticed that technology does... and I even hesitate to use that phrase "technology does" because technology doesn't do anything without people. But what technology allows people to do (that's more like it) is rationalize bad decisions. Shoplifting in a store and stealing someone's intellectual property are the same crime. But you can swipe code while looking totally innocent, just tappity-tapping away on your computer. Technology allows rationalization to the point of delusion. If you doubt this, look at two things: 1) the number of technology companies built on stolen ideas, often from eachother, and 2) just watch the person arrested for insider trading or embezzlement versus the person arrested for a more overt crime of the same type that isn't muddied up by the use of high technology. The white collar guy is either invariably sobbing wondering why he's being treated "like a criminal" when in reality it's because he thought he'd never get caught or is on the 60 minutes interview claiming to be the victim, because he has that layer (or several layers) of abstraction between himself and his victim. The "regular" criminal is either just stoic or almost smiling. To steal Martin Sheen's line from The Departed, there are those that deal in deception, and then those that deal in self-deception. Technology, particularly the invisibility and anonymity it enables, allows for this self-deception.

Every solution brings new problems. Social media has provided great business value and educational opportunities to society, and helps solve many problems. But according to a panel discussion I attended today at Ogilvy PR, it has brought its own set of legal and ethical issues, including Fair Information Practice Principals: transparency, user control and consent, access, data security, and retention. All were non-issues or much smaller issues before e-commerce and social media enabled people to "share" information.

Some of these will be solved by self-regulation, others by legislation, and others not at all. One of the more valuable insights of today's meeting was the idea that solving the ethical issues will require collaboration between government, industry, and consumers.

Andrew is correct - ethics is always relative to human beingss, not technology. In general, an action is ethical if the person taking that action wouldn't mind if the whole world knew about it (ignoring the need to keep certain relationships private, of course). But even actions kept private can be judged against this metric.

Yes, ethics are a human domain. So is technology. (grin)

It might simplify the question to review other areas where technology creates new moral questions. The Industrial Revolution created enormous wealth. It also increased pollution, to the point of killing hundreds of thousands of people (look up 19th Century London's killer fogs). The new technology created a new ethical problem related to waste - large scale burning of coal became a problem. Was this an ethical issue? Of course, mass execution is always an ethical issue!

Broad new powers always have an ethical component, and information is no different.

This track perhaps does not need another answer, the previous ones being right on point.

Here is one additional thought, however, that for me encapsulates the changing environment in which we live. Technology, as said earlier in the track, doesn't (usually) do anything, so it cannot itself be blamed for ethical lapses with which it becomes associated.

However, if we assume that evil lurks somewhere down in every heart, then technology has two major impacts that put us at risk:

1. Anonymity: if you can do things you shouldn't without anyone knowing who or where you are, then you are more likely to indulge those impulses that would do harm. Technology, especially the Internet and its applications, provides that anonymity, and we see the result. A case in point is "cyberbullying", generally regarded as a growing threat for young people. The one thing about this phenomenon is that it is virtually always done by people who do not disclose their identity (and presumably wouldn't do the bullying if they were seen.) Freud identified this tendency in 1921 (Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego) and while he may have gotten the psyhodynamics wrong, he recognized clearly that members of groups (whether formal or ad hoc) were capable of things that no individual would do. That part hasn't changed and we ignore it at our peril.

2. Leverage: when you had to steal money or gold, you had to contemplate breaking into a bank (or Ft. Knox) and running off with half a ton of value. When, as we have seen in the past 30 years, you could steal millions with a mere mouse click, the incidence of theft and attempted theft has exploded at all levels. My wife, during her two decades with VISA, saw credit card theft attempts increase exponentially as more and more transactions were conducted on-line.

For me then, the upshot is that when we contemplate technology that is likely to have widespread impact, we must, as best we can, take into account the harm its misuse can do while we are gushing over its potential for good (or fun.) Our email protocols, for example, were designed without considering the potential for spam. While there may have been no way back then to prevent or suppress it before the fact, we might certainly agree that the effort would have been worth it.

This track perhaps does not need another answer, the previous ones being right on point.

Here is one additional thought, however, that for me encapsulates the changing environment in which we live. Technology, as said earlier in the track, doesn't (usually) do anything, so it cannot itself be blamed for ethical lapses with which it becomes associated.

However, if we assume that evil lurks somewhere down in every heart, then technology has two major impacts that put us at risk:

1. Anonymity: if you can do things you shouldn't without anyone knowing who or where you are, then you are more likely to indulge those impulses that would do harm. Technology, especially the Internet and its applications, provides that anonymity, and we see the result. A case in point is "cyberbullying", generally regarded as a growing threat for young people. The one thing about this phenomenon is that it is virtually always done by people who do not disclose their identity (and presumably wouldn't do the bullying if they were seen.) Freud identified this tendency in 1921 (Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego) and while he may have gotten the psyhodynamics wrong, he recognized clearly that members of groups (whether formal or ad hoc) were capable of things that no individual would do. That part hasn't changed and we ignore it at our peril.

2. Leverage: when you had to steal money or gold, you had to contemplate breaking into a bank (or Ft. Knox) and running off with half a ton of value. When, as we have seen in the past 30 years, you could steal millions with a mere mouse click, the incidence of theft and attempted theft has exploded at all levels. My wife, during her two decades with VISA, saw credit card theft attempts increase exponentially as more and more transactions were conducted on-line.

For me then, the upshot is that when we contemplate technology that is likely to have widespread impact, we must, as best we can, take into account the harm its misuse can do while we are gushing over its potential for good (or fun.) Our email protocols, for example, were designed without considering the potential for spam. While there may have been no way back then to prevent or suppress it before the fact, we might certainly agree that the effort would have been worth it.

Ethics: Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

The question then, is a matter of moral principles, which are defined in aggregate by society, right?

We live in a capitalist society, where business is (actually, "ought to be": the bailout programs slapped this notion in the face and may have been of themselves "unethical") based largely on supply and demand.

In the matter at hand-- dwelling unit prices-- I therefore feel the use of technology is ethical. If not enough people can afford the rent hike, the rent will necessarily drop again. It is the responsibility of business to maximize profit.

That said, this caveat: Responsible business maximizes profit LONG TERM, and this is usually also in the best interests of consumers, the planet, and other ethical concerns. Why? Because long term profit requires ensuring the renewability of resources and meeting inherent consumer needs, such as affordability. In the last couple of decades, many business concerns have acted irresponsibly and even stupidly in making SHORT TERM profit decisions their priority. This path is not only unethical and irresponsible to the public, it is also myopic, or short-sighted for the business itself in that short term gains are very often lost when a market is pushed to the point of collapse.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

Interesting view. Ethical issues go well beyond profit, even long term profit, but then businesses are not moral entities - i.e., people. (This is distinct from their narrow legal definition of 'person', an entity that can enter into contracts and own property.) In religious terms a business has no 'soul', in sociological terms they have no inherent understanding of the social contract. Businesses DO have a requirement to consider only the law and shareholder return in decisions.

Psychology used to call people with these characteristics sociopaths and we would lock them away to prevent their defective nature from creating great harm. Businesses create too much value to do the same, but we need to treat them carefully like any other powerful, amoral force - with respect and caution, constraining their actions in useful directions.

This is NOT to say that business people, or even business owners are amoral sociopaths (grin). It is simply that, like a gun, car or other bit of technology a business is very powerful and dangerous when used carelessly.

BTW, your merger of ethics and economics is good but incomplete. Too many costs from a decision are borne by others. When those costs are fully internalized (by an individual as well as a business) then economic decisions become ethical ones. The classic example is the village green problem - an area owned in common by everyone is over grazed because the incremental cost of an additional goat is borne by everyone, whereas the profit is collected by the goat owner.