Digital Age: Policy Competence and Economic Growth - Term Paper Example

 Table of Contents Abstract I. Introduction II. Information Privacy A. Definition III. Policies and Other Guidelines IV. Classic Example: Microsoft and Netscape V. Ethical Problem: Licensed vs. Open Source Programs VI. Implications of Information Privacy A. Political B. Economic C. Social D. Technological VII. Conclusion VIII. References Abstract Today, a lot of information about people is kept on computers, connected to the internet. When information is on the internet or even just on a computer, it is a lot easier for someone to look at, borrow or steal it compare to when it is on paper. This means that everyone now has to worry more about information privacy. In this paper, I will define ‘information privacy’, discuss laws relating to internet privacy, and describe a case where good computer science techniques could have prevented a privacy disaster. In this paper, I will also look at its implications in the political, economic, social, and technological aspects. I. Introduction We live in a digital age. This means that information is stored in digital form on computers often hooked up to the internet. However, with the widespread evolution of information technology, information privacy has also been one of the most controversial issues society faces today. The implementation of protections for information can be viewed from the perspective of the computer scientist or of the user. One can see innovations in software and hardware coming everyday. This can give certain advantages and tools to hackers, spammers and other people. With the use of this, they become more dangerous to information privacy. Information privacy (security) is protected through encryptions, passwords, security update, and by other means. On the other hand, consumers and internet users accept end user license agreements (EULA) as an assurance. Therefore, any personal information protected from inappropriate use or any acts of deception. With the boom of commercial, personal (known as blogs), educational and service provider web sites, through the efforts of licensed and open source programs, various questions have been raised on the ethical implications of these innovations on information privacy. The prevalence of internet crimes related to information privacy has been increasing day by day. Moreover, because technology has been rapidly changing year by year, a long-term approach to internet privacy is still being developed. Nonetheless, an attempt to tackle such issue would not, in any way, resolve the problem. Instead, this paper will provide useful insight on the issue of information privacy, and hopefully as a starting point of future research. II. Information Privacy The concept of information privacy has been one of the most critical issues. It takes into serious consideration. Imagine a world without information privacy. Credit cardholders would have difficulty purchasing and exchanging vital information. Multinational companies would simply lose its potential revenues. Other companies would emulate innovations and other useful information. Social security numbers of other people would be used as a means to commit fraud, estafa, and even money laundering. On the brighter side, the lack of information privacy creates a breeding ground for technological sharing and distribution. People would be more willing to contribute to technology, rather than creating malicious programs, towards the betterment of the digital age. With intellectual property rights, Software programs and trade techniques shared, rather than protected. Right now, the degree to which your personal information is kept private depends on the organization that has it. Personal information is kept on website databases or encrypted data for safekeeping. Before a program or software is installed, a “terms of agreement” form is laid out for the consumer and subjected for approval. By accepting the terms of the organization or company who owns the software, the consumer is subject to follow their rules and regulations. In addition, the privacy options that the software offers. According to the National Academies Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, the United States has a “slow and uneven development of privacy policy” (“CSTB Privacy” 10). In 1974, the Privacy Act of 1974, passed by the Unites States Congress, states that: No agency shall disclose any record, which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains (“Privacy Act of 1974” 88 Stat. 1897). The law posed several exceptions, in allowing the use of personal records, such as its use for: statistical purposes (through the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics), routine purposes of the US government agency, law enforcement purposes, administrative purposes, Congressional investigations, and for archiving. An amendment to the Privacy Act is the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This is mandated to ensure the procedural uniformity of carrying out machine programs, oversee matching programs. This can be achieved through the establishment of Data Integrity Boards at each agency engaged in matching. Also due process for those individuals or entities, wherein their rights must be protected is taken (“Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act” 100–503). As technological advances progressed, attention to medical privacy grew during the 1990s. Since 1990s, the country has yet to implement a law, which provides information safety and security to World Wide Web (www) users. Some file-sharing, warez, and peer-to-peer networks have tried to protect themselves by claiming the so-called existence of “Internet Privacy Act”, signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995. This had actually never existed in the first place. An example of an erroneous statement claiming to protect its web site is the following: If you are affiliated with any government, police, anti-piracy group or other related group or working for Adidas, Manolo Blahnik, Converse, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Burberry, Hermes, Prada, Air Jordan, Nike, Timberland, Gucci, Cartier, Oakley either directly or indirectly, or any other related group, or were formally a worker, you CANNOT enter these web pages, links, nor access any of its files and you cannot view any of the HTML files. If in fact you are affiliated or were affiliated with the above said companies, by entering this site you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this website (“Internet Privacy Act of 1995” 1). These futile efforts only prove to show, how the US government is unable or unwilling to implement accurate policies and implementing guidelines on the aforementioned matter. Thus leading to various unethical practices that not only degrades the use of the internet, but as well as the future of the information technology. For purposes of discussion, the term information privacy being denoted in the following classic example refers to information and licensing agreements within software programs and other related products. III. Classic Examples: Microsoft and Netscape During the so-called “browser wars,” Microsoft and Netscape were competing to come up with the ultimate Internet web page browser. This occurred during the time when Internet browsers were starting to be more widely used, due to the availability of a graphical interface and hypertext. At the early in the competition was Lynx, a text browser for the World Wide Web. Netscape’s Navigator adheres to the model of freeware or open source information. This allows other users to modify and contribute to their innovation. Participation is highly encouraged to all those who can input to the software. With the source code for Navigator openly available for all, public advocacy is encouraged to all members of the developer community. It is now called as Mozilla project. Netscape also advocates the operability of its source code to all operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, and Macintosh. Before Microsoft entry, the company was able to capture 80% of its browser users. On the other hand, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is only devoted to operate on Windows. Microsoft uses the technology that was originally developed by Netscape creators. Microsoft used and modified this knowledge to justify its own means. Its source code is not available in the public domain and is carefully protected by intellectual property laws. Information with regards to its programming techniques and methodologies are exclusively private. Microsoft maneuvers at all costs to protect and keep control with itself. This can be seen particularly in the desktop and internet browser business. This is even made worse by the fact that the consumers can only avail of Internet Explorer when he/she purchases its operating system (Windows). The company has also successfully used its very own end user license agreement (EULA) for the benefit of profitability (Allen 99-131). Microsoft eventually wins the battle having the information privacy and intellectual property rights at their side. The company was able to monopolize its web browser sales. It had also increased sales on its operating system. The bundling of Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system was the key for the success of Microsoft. On May 18, 1998, the United States Department of Justice and twenty US states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The case was filed because Microsoft abused of its monopoly power (with the release of Internet Explorer and Windows Operating System), thus unfairly limiting the global market for other web browsers as that of Netscape, Apple Computers, IBM, etc. Aside from its technological edge, its aggressive pricing scheme and innovative development had affected competition across the board. Adding to Microsoft’s disputes is its restrictive licensing agreements with OEM computer manufacturers (United States v. Microsoft 1). Aside from its questionable business tactics, the real predicament behind Microsoft’s controversial case is its unethical propriety rights for the usage of its software. Various business and technological organizations, individuals, and scientists have argued the fact that its restrictive licensing agreements, which are naturally aimed to protect information privacy and their own self-interest, does not appeal to the ideal meaning of Software Engineering Code of Ethics. The sixth principle highly questions the software methodologies utilized by Microsoft: Number 6. PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest (“IEEE-CS/ACM” 9). IV. Ethical Problem: Licensed vs. Open Source Programs In analyzing the ethical dilemma of information privacy over licensed versus open source programs from various social structures, the following ethical issues are taken into consideration: Quality of life, Use of power, Safety, Property rights, Privacy, Equity and access, and Honesty and deception. Proprietary software affects society. If people cannot afford to buy licenses, they feel forced to pirate the software. It is true that making software proprietary is a way to respect the intellectual property of the developers and their company. However, multinational software companies have gone too far: they have tried to destroy open source software as well. On the other hand, open source programs are yet to reach its full scale. People are willing to invest their money’s worth over licensed programs. Furthermore, the lack of privacy and property rights makes open-ware advocates more prone to software piracy from those individuals belonging to multinational companies. In terms of power, open source programs have less competitive advantage over licensed ones. Overall, these two opposing forces leave a big question mark over which is more valuable in technological information development: Ethics or Profit. V. Implications of Information Privacy A. Political As ethical problems have sprouted like mushrooms all over the Internet. The world has yet to mark out property rights from information privacy laws. Without it, the Internet will never be a safe place. Indeed, there exists the presence of license agreements from varying software developers. But for as long as the rules are dictated by the profit-oriented multinational companies; ethical standards on software development will eventually be forgotten. Companies will continue to manipulate the policies, rules and regulations towards their stakes, never minding the affordability and capabilities of its consumers. B. Economic Without information privacy, software companies will continue to reap profits up to a million fold. Personal information of consumers1 would be indeed safely secured. But on the downside, the expensive continuous maintenance costs of these web sites would be passed on to consumers. Thus leaving the consumer empty handed. Again, profit making more valued than ethics. Morality is set aside in favor of making profitable business decisions (Schrage 4). C. Social People are now discovering the uniqueness and accessibility of the Internet and information systems. They are also resorting to online purchases as opposed to the traditional marketing scheme. People trust the privacy agreements whenever they use credit cards, as well as other critical purchases. Because of this, people have become less socially inclined to do the job themselves. Household bills and other necessities are done over the Internet. Getting new friends are also done online. In this particular case, ethics is less considered as there is less human contact. People get what they want, regardless whether they have been polite or kind enough in asking so. D. Technological Technology will continue to devise ways and means to improve its information privacy systems and database. This will be at the expense of one’s moral and ethical background. Companies are more willing to undertaking into profitable business ventures. Without the presence of proper ethical perspective on information privacy, technological advances, despite the goodness it can bring, will be instrumental in the degradation of mankind’s morality. VI. Conclusion Information technology has brought new avenues. These have been unimaginable to humanity over a century ago. As a price to pay for the information privacy that these technological advances have brought, man’s ethics and moral standards have deeply suffered. This manifested by Microsoft and Netscape’s browser war. The challenge for society nowadays is to come up with a technology that will promote the overall well-being and ethical standards of man, without sacrificing information privacy. This may be far from impossible, given that current belief systems of computer scientists, multinational companies, and the like are in unison towards the betterment of humanity. In conclusion, this paper defined ‘information privacy’, discussed laws relating to internet privacy, and described a case where good computer science techniques could have prevented a privacy disaster. Also this paper looked at its implications in the political, economic, social, and technological aspects. At last it can be said that, this paper will provide useful insight on the issue of information privacy, and hopefully as a starting point of future research. VII. References National Academies Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, CSTB Privacy in the Information Age Prospectus. (Washington: undated) 10 pp. United States Congress, Privacy Act of 1974. Public Law No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec. 31, 1974). United Stated Congress, Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. P.L. 100–503. Internet Privacy Act of 1995. , November 2006, 1 p. Allen, David, “Chapter 4 Microsoft vs. Netscape,” The Limits of Government on Policy Competence and Economic Growth, Papers from the Sixth Conference of the International Joseph A Schumpeter Society in Stockholm (Stockholm: City University Press, 1998) p. 99-131. IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices, Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, CCSR (2002) 9 pp. Schrage, Michael, “Ethics, Shmethics,” COI Magazine, (MA: 2005) 4 pp. United States v. Microsoft. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>, November 2006, 1 p. Read More