article

A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology

Author:

David WrightAuthors Info & Claims

Ethics and Information Technology, Volume 13, Issue 3

Pages 199 - 226

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9242-6

Published: 01 September 2011 Publication History

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for an ethical impact assessment which can be performed in regard to any policy, service, project or programme involving information technology. The framework is structured on the four principles posited by Beauchamp and Childress together with a separate section on privacy and data protection. The framework identifies key social values and ethical issues, provides some brief explanatory contextual information which is then followed by a set of questions aimed at the technology developer or policy-maker to facilitate consideration of ethical issues, in consultation with stakeholders, which may arise in their undertaking. In addition, the framework includes a set of ethical tools and procedural practices which can be employed as part of the ethical impact assessment. Although the framework has been developed within a European context, it could be applied equally well beyond European borders.

References

[1]

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Recommendation 3/97: Anonymity on the Internet (WP 6), Adopted on 3 December 1997. http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/.

[2]

Article 29 Working Party, Opinion on data protection issues related to search engines, 00737/EN, WP 148, Adopted on 4 April 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/ wpdocs/2008_en.htm.

[3]

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

[4]

Beekman, V., et al. (2006). Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production, Final Report of the Ethical Bio-TA Tools project, LEI, The Hague, February. http:// www.ethicaltools.info.

[5]

Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 3-12.

[6]

Boddy, Dr Ken, LOCOMOTION Ethical Study Report, Deliverable D 3.3, Final Version, September 2004. http://cordis.europa.eu/ search/index.cfm?fuseaction=proj.document&PJ_LANG=EN& PJ_RCN=6099060&pid=37&q=6AF6FCCDA9FE6C99B48B10 861AFEBDDA&type=sim.

[7]

Brey, P. (2000). Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 125-129.

[8]

Clarke, R. (2007). Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of terms, Aug. http://www.rogerclarke. com/DV/Intro.html.

[9]

Dekker, M. (2004). The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, 2(2-3), 139-156.

[10]

European Commission, Ageing well in the Information Society, Action Plan on Information and Communication Technologies and Ageing, An i2010 Initiative, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2007) 332 final, Brussels, 14 June 2007.

[11]

European Commission, Communication on the precautionary principle, COM (2000)1, Brussels, 2 Feb 2000.

[12]

European Commission, Commission earmarks ¢1bn for investment in broadband--Frequently Asked Questions, Press release, MEMO/ 09/35, Brussels, 28 January 2009. http://europa.eu/rapid/press ReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/35.

[13]

European Commission, The European Research Area: New Perspectives, Green Paper, COM(2007) 161 final, Brussels, 4 Apr 2007.

[14]

European Commission, European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion: "To be part of the information society", Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2007) 694 final, Brussels, 8 Nov 2007.

[15]

European Council resolution on e-Inclusion, exploiting the opportunities of the information society for social inclusion, 2001/C 292/ 02, OJ 18 Oct 2001.

[16]

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), Opinion No. 20 on Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body, Adopted on 16 March 2005.

[17]

European Parliament and Council, Directive 2001/20/EC of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, OJ L 121/34, Brussels, 1 May 2001.

[18]

European Parliament and Council, Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), Official Journal L 108 of 24 April 2002.

[19]

European Parliament and Council, Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, 15 March 2006.

[20]

European Parliament and Council, Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L281/31 of 23 Nov 1995.

[21]

Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying values in technology: theory and practice. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 322-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22]

Goldberg, I., Hill, A., & Shostack, A. (2001). Trust, ethics, and privacy. Boston University Law Review, 81, 101-116.

[23]

Helft, M. (2010). Critics say Google invades privacy with new service. The New York Times, 12 Feb. http://www.nytimes. com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google.html.

[24]

Hildebrant, M., & Gutwirth, S. (2008). Profiling the European Citizen. Dordrecht: Springer.

[25]

Hofmann, B. (2005). On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, 3(4), 277-295.

[26]

International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 15408, Information technology--Security techniques--Evaluation criteria for IT security, First edition, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1999.

[27]

Johnson, B. (2009). Finland makes broadband access a legal right. The Guardian, 14 Oct. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ 2009/oct/14/finland-broadband.

[28]

Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (Eds.). (2007). Regulatory impact assessment: towards better regulation?. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

[29]

Kuzma, J., et al. (2008). An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1197-1219.

[30]

Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. London: Routledge.

[31]

Maiese, M. (2003) Principles of Justice and Fairness, Beyond Intractability.org, July. http://www.beyondintractability.org/ essay/principles_of_justice/.

[32]

Marx, G. T. (1998). Ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14, 171-185.

[33]

Mepham, T. B. (2005). Bioethics: An introduction for the biosciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[34]

Moor, J. H. (1985). What is Computer Ethics? In T. W. Bynum (Ed.), Computers & Ethics (pp. 266-275). Oxford: Blackwell.

[35]

Moor, J. H. (1997). Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Computers and Society, 27, 27-32.

Digital Library

[36]

Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111-119.

Digital Library

[37]

Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 101-139.

[38]

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Guidelines on the Transborder Flows of Personal Data, Paris, 23 Sept 1980. http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_ 34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html.

[39]

Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research--a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134.

Digital Library

[40]

Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 543-558.

[41]

Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.

[42]

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251- 290. http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/251.

[43]

Skorupinski, B., & Ott, K. (2002). Technology assessment and ethics. Poiesis & Praxis, 1, 95-122.

[44]

Sollie, P. (2007). Ethics, technology development and uncertainty: an outline for any future ethics of technology. Journal of Information Communications & Ethics in Society, 5(4), 293-306.

[45]

Sollie, P., & Düwell, M. (2009). Evaluating new technologies: Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Dordrecht: Springer.

[46]

Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research Council, National Academy Press.

[47]

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Privacy Impact Assessment Guidelines: A framework to Manage Privacy Risks, Ottawa, 31 Aug 2002.

[48]

UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook, Version 2.0, June 2009. http://www. ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/pia_handbook. aspx.

[49]

US National Research Council, Committee on Risk Perception and Communications, Improving Risk Communication, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,1989. http://www.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=1189&page=R1.

[50]

Van Gorp, A. (2009). Ethics in and during technological research; An addition to IT ethics and science ethics. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (pp. 35-50). Dordrecht: Springer.

[51]

Vedder, A., & Custers, B. (2009). Whose responsibility is it anyway? Dealing with the consequences of new technologies. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

[52]

Verbeek, P.-P. (2009). The moral relevance of technological artifacts. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies: methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments (pp. 63-79). Dordrecht: Springer.

[53]

von Schomberg, R. (2007). From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. Working document from the European Commission Services, Jan.

Cited By

Stahl BEke D(2024)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technologyInternational Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.10270074:COnline publication date: 27-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
Tjikhoeri NOlson LGuzmán E(2024)The best ends by the best means: ethical concerns in app reviewsEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10463-729:6Online publication date: 17-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-024-10463-7
Ren YFisler KDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)A Social Threat Modeling Framework to Structure Teaching about Responsible ComputingProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569760(402-408)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569760
Show More Cited By

A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology
1. Social and professional topics

Recommendations

Cybersecurity behavior change: A conceptualization of ethical principles for behavioral interventions
Highlights
- Behavior change is increasingly used to minimize the human attack surface.
- There is a lack of ethics related to cybersecurity behavior change interventions.
- We propose repurposed and expanded ethical principles from biomedical ...
Abstract
The importance of changing behaviors is gradually being acknowledged in cybersecurity, and the reason is the realization that a notable portion of security incidents have a human-related component. Thus, enhancing behaviors at individual level, ...
Ethical decision-making in the Internet context: Development and test of an initial model based on moral philosophy

This paper proposes an ethical decision-making model in the Internet context based on moral theories and then empirically tests the model. The model posits that five moral philosophy variables-justice, relativism, egoism, deontology, and utilitarianism-...
Invoking politics and ethics in the design of information technology: undesigning the design

It is a truism that the design and deployment of information and communication technologies is vital to everyday life, the conduct of work and to social order. But how are individual, organisational and societal choices made? What might it mean to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Ethics and Information Technology

Ethics and Information Technology Volume 13, Issue 3

September 2011

112 pages

ISSN:1388-1957

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2011

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Stahl BEke D(2024)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technologyInternational Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.10270074:COnline publication date: 27-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
Tjikhoeri NOlson LGuzmán E(2024)The best ends by the best means: ethical concerns in app reviewsEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10463-729:6Online publication date: 17-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-024-10463-7
Ren YFisler KDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)A Social Threat Modeling Framework to Structure Teaching about Responsible ComputingProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569760(402-408)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569760
Stahl BAntoniou JBhalla NBrooks LJansen PLindqvist BKirichenko AMarchal SRodrigues RSantiago NWarso ZWright D(2023)A systematic review of artificial intelligence impact assessmentsArtificial Intelligence Review10.1007/s10462-023-10420-856:11(12799-12831)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10462-023-10420-8
Heikkilä PLammi HAromaa S(2023)Engaging a Project Consortium in Ethics-Aware Design and ResearchHuman-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 202310.1007/978-3-031-42280-5_17(297-306)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-42280-5_17
Kaur DUslu SRittichier KDurresi A(2022)Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: A ReviewACM Computing Surveys10.1145/349120955:2(1-38)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491209
Nanayakkara PHullman JDiakopoulos NFourcade MKuipers BLazar SMulligan D(2021)Unpacking the Expressed Consequences of AI Research in Broader Impact StatementsProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society10.1145/3461702.3462608(795-806)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461702.3462608
Wasilow SThorpe J(2019)Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Ethics, and the MilitaryAI Magazine10.1609/aimag.v40i1.284840:1(37-48)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2848
Jakobi TPatil SRandall DStevens GWulf V(2019)It Is About What They Could Do with the DataACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/328144426:1(1-44)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3281444
Heikkilä PHonka AMach SSchmalfuß FKaasinen EVäänänen K(2018)Quantified Factory Worker - Expert Evaluation and Ethical Considerations of Wearable Self-tracking DevicesProceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference10.1145/3275116.3275119(202-211)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3275116.3275119
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents