Analog Ethics in a Digital World

A Quick Overview of that which is Ethical

The old story that recounts the occasion upon which three blind men encountered an elephant is a very applicable to a discussion on ethics.  In the story, the three men are asked to describe what their perceptions of the elephant and each man’s account varied radically.  One man described it as broad and flat, like a giant leaf on a tree; the second indicated that he perceived it to be much like a very pliable cord, much smaller than he was led to believe;  the third man described the same elephant as being broad like a wall with perhaps a slight curvature and seemingly immobile yet alive.  Clearly, to a sighted person one can readily see that the men were simply describing different parts of the same animal: the ear, tail and flank.  While one cannot say if in describing what is “ethical”, that we all speak about the same animal, it is certain that even if this is the case, there are multiple perspectives.

One such perspective is deemed “duty-based” or deontological method.  One approach within this scheme is that people “intuitively know how to choose in a moral dilemmas”.  A potential problem with this is that it is based upon the relative position of a specific person and thus, in the event of a disagreement, could be viewed as ‘arbitrary ethics’.  Another approach from this perspective is that of ethics are based upon some form of a ‘code of conduct’.  This approach, while useful specific groups or interests in a certain time or context situation, are not generally applicable at all time to all persons.  Both of these approaches operate under the assumptions that the outcome of situation has no bearing upon the extent to which an act is ethical (Hamelink 2000, pp. 2-3).
   

To address this consideration, the perspective of “utilitarianism” has arisen.  In this school, one approach is that rules and guidelines are, in the end, of little use in determining what is and what is not “ethical”.  While this approach offers the attractiveness of flexibility to fit any situation, it presents the same degree of arbitrariness as other “duty-based” methods (Hamelink 2000, pp. 3-4).
   

A third choice is that of a “contextualist approach” or one in which the reality of a situation guides the morality of it (Hamelink 2000, p. 4).  An example of an argument that arises from this perspective would likely be that of the “greater good argument”.  The classic illustration of this hybridization is the ethics involved in the following moral dilemma:

Imagine that you live in Berlin in 1940 and that a Jewish family with who you and your family are close to is hiding in your apartment.  Your young children and theirs often played together in times recently past.  There is a knock on the door and upon opening it, a Nazi political officer and two soldiers inquire as to the whereabouts of the family which you are knowingly and willfully hiding.  Do you do the ‘right’ thing and give the family up or do you do the ‘right’ thing and maintain the ruse, possibly endangering your family?

From a duty-based response, the morality is based upon a set a rules to which the outcome is irrelevant.  From utilitarian perspective, the outcome is of more importance than the rules by which you use.  Finally, from the contextual perspective, the pursuit of the greater “good” (and even here, this is relatively defined) is perpetrated yet one is, ideally, aware that falsehood was committed in order to preserve the lives of others.

Issues, Dilemmas and the Three S’s

    Thus, with just a bit of ethics-process, one can begin to consider a few of the potential issues in dealing with such a loaded subject.  As the topic of ethics is considered in a world of changing technology, does what is “right” change with the addition of technology?  Are the behaviors that one exhibits on the web judged differently that those in “real life”?  Should one have different expectation of privacy on with electronic data exchange systems than those in more analog methods?  What, if anything, changes?
   

As there are multiple values systems, depending on context, process and outcome, the ‘systems’ that guide public policy and private practice may differ.  With the advance of technology, the issues may not have changed but the process has.  The sweeping digitalization of the world has produced change primarily in three aspects:

1.    Speed – The age of the internet has decreased the expected response time from 2-3 days in the mid-1990’s when interoffice mail was common to an ‘unreasonable’ 2-3 hours in a fully connected and wired office space ten years later.  When one had to go to considerable effort and take time to start rampant rumors and slander or to copy and distribute copyrighted or illicit material, it can now happen by the time you can say, “click”.  Technology has certainly increased the speed at which ethical issues can metastasize.

2.    Scope – With changing technology comes changes in unethical activity.  In the past, peddlers of pornography probably relied upon comparatively small circles of friends with the same affinity.   Now, “networks” are what the internet is.  The disruptive technology has transformed how people socialize and share “information”.  One ‘amateur’ pornographer now has the audience of a wired globe with which to share and exchange ‘data’.  Technology has exponentially altered the scope of person-to-person interactions.

3.    Scale – In the past, one would like to think that it would take a lot of work to topple a multi-billion dollar enterprise.  That one person could not possibly manipulate so many variables simultaneously so as to dupe so many people was almost safeguard enough.  In response, witness Enron, WorldCom and other companies in which technology facilitated the crime.  As is commonly said in many rural circles, 4-wheel drive can get you stuck further away from pavement than 2-wheel drive can.  In the same way, it seems computers have enabled thieves to steal more, faster.

These changes have not [necessarily] changed the ethical dilemmas that we continue to face… they were likely always there in the analog equivalents but changes in technology has likely facilitated those people and acts which were bent toward immorality in the first place.  As for the rest of us, we are, at the very least, tempted and teased by the ease and magnitude of the potential of the tools that lie within our grasps.

Analog Issues of Yesterday in the Digital Medium of Today: Journalism

Journalism is an interesting issue and a nice place to begin with the endeavor to take a critical look at the collision of technology and morality.  Journalism was not really viewed as a favorable or necessarily “full-time” profession until the 1800’s.  Even then it was often highly political in nature and not until the age of the “story”- and “information”-models came into being that a sense of articulable ethics began to emerge (Berkman & Shumway 2003, pp. 27, 38).  As the profession grew the ideas of such luminaries as Joseph Pulitzer in the early 1900’s that the news ought to be, “…purged of any bias or ideology… emphasis on independently verifiable facts… that could be gathered through enterprise, observation and investigation” (Berkman & Shumway 2003, p. 43).  This sense of ethics, a deontological approach known as the “journalistic method” continues to this day… this dilemma is akin to the question, “Would the real journalist please stand up?”
Given the “Canons of Journalism” such as truthfulness, impartiality and decency among others, it is easy to see with a quick perusal of print, the internet of television that it is often difficult to tell what constitutes journalism and what constitutes advertisement.  For the moment, let us make the assumption that journalism may have remained true… it is a rational motive that those with an agenda of personal profit tied to the sales of a certain widget would see strategic value in creating an advertisement that was nearly indistinguishable from a impartial, fully genuine journalistic piece.  Though US television viewers see the print, “the following is a paid advertisemt” on a certain “Infomercial”, separating truth from hype is often tricky to say the least.

The journalistic presentation photographs is also an area fraught with eithical dilemmas.  As most know, just about anything is possible with the reigning champion of this type of software, PhotoShop©.  Knowing the potential for abuse, guidelines such as those of DigitalCustom Group, in an effort to preserve the intent of the journalistic method in a digital world, prohibit such actions as:
    Adding, removing or moving objects in such as way that the context of the event is altered,
    Age progression or regression,
    Altering facial expressions, gestures, clothing, body parts or personal accessories,
    Retouching that enhances or reduces the apparent quality or desirability of an item,
    Using “motion” to create a misleading impression that the subject is moving at a different speed than the events,
    Using any digital editing in a way that creates a misleading impression of the events, participants, or context (Society for the Advancement of Education April 2002, p. 15).

Despite these guidelines, the science and art of digital modification is so advanced that it is virtually impossible in many instances, especially in the absence of advanced photoanalyzing software, to detect alterations.  As such, the ploys of marketeers appear more “honest” with the net affect is that the trust in the media and marketeers diminishes.

A Shy Exhibitionist and Invisible Walls

At the onset of study regarding privacy beliefs in Colonial Puritan Massachusetts, researcher David Flaherty expected to find that they did not especially value it as their collective and cohesive religious practices would seemingly suggest.  In fact, members of this group did strive to achieve privacy through ownership of private property and a heightened sense of “reserve” in personal communications (Bennett & Grant 1999, p. 20).   This occurred despite the seemingly incompatibility of many of their very communal religious beliefs and existence in general… an irony that still occurs today. 
   

People go to great lengths to live in a busy city, seek out social outlets such as malls or clubs yet the same individuals go to just as great lengths to retain a degree of anonymity and love to “get away”.  It is surely an oddly blended truth and it is reflected through the changing technology of the internet. 
   

For example, consider the numerous sites by which web-streamed video broadcasts what goes on within a house 24-hours a day.  These 21st century exhibitionists are often quite the voyeur in the ‘privacy’ of their own home but, though broadcasting to the world, may not be so open in person.  The internet affords them this odd blend of anonymity and privacy that virtually everyone seems to pursue.
   

From a different angle, consider modern London, the city that has the densest coverage of surveillance video cameras in the world (Bennett & Grant 1999, pp. 22-23)..  In this case, people seem to willingly surrender their right and expectation of privacy for the pursuit of a greater good.  Consider somewhat similarly, the Nazis used the very best analog technology to monitor the public albeit for the pursuit of a less noble purpose.  The issue at stake is, much like the Nazis, could such technology, currently deployed for good be likewise, by the right individual(s), be corrupted?  For now, the greater good seems to side for technology.

A final example of issue involving privacy and technology would be that of what constitutes “plain view”.  This doctrine which govern the actions of American police officers and prevents the public from unlawful search is perhaps malleable.  As technology evolves, the activities that take place behind the four walls of a private residence become visible.  Though current law prohibits the use of ‘extraordinary measures’ to discern if, for example, illegal drugs are being used, to what extent is it in the ‘public good’ for police to deploy this currently existing technology (either a computer version or that of the equal capable technology of the canine nose)?

Technology is Blind

To a computer, these issues are quite irrelevant: because it only sees binary code, it cannot ‘discern’ if an image is Mona Lisa or a pornographic knock-off.  As such, it has not value system.  It only manipulates data.  It copies, prints, burns, streams, mails, and stores it all the same.  And it does it quickly.  
In light of everything consisting ultimately of  0’s and 1’s, technology only enables the values of the user.  Analogous to the arguments of firearm’s rights advocates, it is not the gun that kills people, it is other people that make choices (and, for the sake of our argument, it is not the bullet either).  So, over the course of even remotely recent human history, not much has changed. 

The intents, crimes and judgments remain largely unchanged.  Mankind is still in pursuit of an odd blend of privacy and publicity, still trying to influence others to ‘buy’ something and still trying to creating lasting images and impressions.  In the end, the only the scope, scale and speed of the dilemma has changed. 
 

Works Consulted

Bennett, C. and R. Grant. (editors). (1999). Visions of Privacy:  Policy Changes for the Digital Age.  University of Toronto Press:  Toronto, Canada.

Berkman, R. and C. Shumway. (2003). Digital Dilemmas:  Ethical Issues for Online Media Professionals.  Iowa State Press: Ames, Iowa, US.

Hamelink, C.  (2000). The Ethics of Cyberspace.  Sage Publications: London, England, UK.

Society for the Advancement of Education. (April, 2002) “Journalism:  Ethically Editing News from Photos Digitally”. USA Today.