Shoutout to Carissa Lintao for the topic.

Debates around morality and ethics have prevailed since the dawn of civilization. In fact, it is ethics and morals that classify us as civilized individuals. However, there never was and probably never will be a unified code that we consider as ethics. Cultural diversity prompts the subjective nature of ethics. What may be ethical for one set of people, may be taboo for another set.

The 21st century provides us, further, with a new paradigm to be considered. The ethics that revolve around technology and cyberspace. Morals governing cyberspace can be highly intricate and controversial, which paves the way for a “grey area” of principles.

On the very onset it is crucial to note that unlike the physical world; cyberspace lacks ‘law enforcement’. Sure, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) can track if you visit malicious websites, or the government can forbid people from accessing certain networks. But, none of those methods really stop cybercrime and cyber-threats.

The Necessity

In an earlier blog on Surveillance Capitalism I outlined measures taken by various companies to appeal to their target audience and categorised them as ‘questionable’. However, today we rise above the standpoint of consumerism and profit. Ethical use of cyberspace becomes a matter of national and international security.

Maintaining surveillance on users primarily to deter a cyber attack or crime would be one way to ensure decent use of cyberspace. Surveillance grants the power of reconnaissance and awareness. The current state of cyber wars across the globe require a seemingly illegal approach to data collection and deterrence. If an entity were to stick to hard rules they’d be walking towards a battlefield, blindfolded.

The Paradox

We’ve discussed the significance of regulating and managing cyberspace, yet we are faced with a paradox affecting two very different instances:

  1. National Interest: Often times, it would be in the national interest of certain governments to monitor activity in cyberspace. Although effective, this violates fundamental rights of people, since they may not have provided explicit consent for the same.
  2. Capitalist Motive: Pertaining to the current business model of Surveillance Capitalism, most companies gather data for their profit. However, without consumers having a general understanding of these data collection methods it becomes seemingly ‘unethical’.

A common question at this juncture would be, how do important tech entities operate now?
Ans: Most tech entities take adavntages of loopholes in laws and operate in “grey areas”. For example, when issues of national security arises, organizations may even choose to violate certain rights of individuals for “the greater good”.

Resolutions

Defining ethics in tech seems to be a herculean task. So let’s start smaller. Characteristics of information flow in the 21st Century prompt the urgent need for a comprehensive data security model. One that is governed by young minds.

  • Certain sites with malicious content can be blocked locally but there will always be way to access them, unless these sites are banned from all locations.
  • Creation of consumer applications and interfaces should hopefully go through a screening process of usability and potential to assess certain ‘ethics’.
  • Consumers and the general public should be made aware of data collection methods and reasons. Authorities ought to govern by understanding, not by force.
  • Stricter penalties for ethics and privacy violations could also help.

All in all, the dicey situation of surveillance and ethics in cyberspace demands a comprehensive yet quick solution.