Book contents
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgment
- 1 Next-Generation Ethics
- 2 Ethical Distinctions for Building Your Ethical Code
- Part I Technology
- 3 Composite Ethical Frameworks for the Internet of Things and Other Emerging Technologies
- 4 Ethics of Immersive Technologies
- 5 Internet, Technology, and the Future: An Interview with Vint Cerf
- 6 A Hippocratic Oath for Technologists
- 7 Data, Privacy, and the Greater Good
- 8 Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Containment
- Part II Business Enterprises
- Part III Engineering
- Part IV Society
- Index
- References
3 - Composite Ethical Frameworks for the Internet of Things and Other Emerging Technologies
from Part I - Technology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Next-Generation Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgment
- 1 Next-Generation Ethics
- 2 Ethical Distinctions for Building Your Ethical Code
- Part I Technology
- 3 Composite Ethical Frameworks for the Internet of Things and Other Emerging Technologies
- 4 Ethics of Immersive Technologies
- 5 Internet, Technology, and the Future: An Interview with Vint Cerf
- 6 A Hippocratic Oath for Technologists
- 7 Data, Privacy, and the Greater Good
- 8 Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Containment
- Part II Business Enterprises
- Part III Engineering
- Part IV Society
- Index
- References
Summary
Modern engineering and technology have allowed us to connect with each other and even to reach the moon. But technology has also polluted vast areas of the planet and empowered surveillance and authoritarian governments with dangerous tools. There are numerous cases where engineers and other stakeholders routinely ask what they are capable of inventing, and what they actually should invent. Nuclear weapons and biotechnology are two examples. But when analyzing the transformations arising from less controversial modern socio-technological tools – like the Internet, smartphones, and connected devices, which augment and define our work and social practices – two very distinct areas of responsibility become apparent. On the one hand, a question arises around the values and practices of the engineers who create the technologies. What values should guide their endeavors and how can society promote good conduct? On the other hand, there are questions regarding the effects of people using these technologies. While engineering and design choices can either promote or hinder commendable social behavior and appropriate use, this chapter will focus on the first question.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Next-Generation EthicsEngineering a Better Society, pp. 19 - 38Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ananny, M. (2016). Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 41(1), 94–96.Google Scholar
Baldini, G., Botterman, M., Neisse, R., & Tallacchini, M. (2016). Ethical design in the Internet of Things. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(3), 905–925.Google Scholar
Calvo, R. A., & Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cerf, V. G., Ryan, P. S., Senges, M., & Whitt, R. S. (2014). A perspective from the private sector: Ensuring that forum follows function. In Drake, William J. & Price, Monroe (Eds.), Beyond netmundial: The roadmap for institutional improvements to the global internet Governance Ecosystem. Center for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cerf, V. G., Ryan, P. S., Senges, M, & Whitt, R. S. (2016). IoT safety and security as shared responsibility. Journal of Business Informatics, 1(35), 7–19.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice, (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Inc.Google Scholar
Clark, D. D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., & Braden, R. (2002, August). Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet. Journal IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), 13(3), 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, L. (2014, May 15). A bill of rights for the Internet of Things, The New York Times.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523–532.Google Scholar
Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2008, October). Shaping strategy in a world of constant disruption. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2008/10/shaping-strategy-in-a-world-of-constant-disruption.Google Scholar
Hardt, M. (2016, October 7). Equality of opportunity in machine learning [blog post]. Retrieved from https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/10/equality-of-opportunity-in-machine.htmlGoogle Scholar
Haarkötter, H., & Weil, F. (Eds.). (2014, December). Ethics for the internet of things. IOT Council.Google Scholar
Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age.. New York, NY: Random House Inc.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. (Ed.) (2012). The Tao of IETF: A novice’s guide to the internet engineering task force. Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
Kontson, K. R. (2001). Critical review of the wireless device Bill of Rights, presentation at the FCC Spectrum Management Working Group (presentation made on December 4, 2002).Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, J. C. (2011). Overview: Theoretical foundations for media ethics, 3–32. In David Gordon, A., Kittross, John M., Merrill, John C., Babcock, William, & Dorsher, Michael (Eds.), Controversies in media ethics (3rd ed.), New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, M. K. (2001, October 30). Broadband migration III: New directions in wireless policy. Speech presented to the Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Rickover, H. (1965, January). A humanistic technology. American Behavioral Scientist 8(5), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S. (2016, March/April). The see change, Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab.Google Scholar
Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab (2016, October 6). Examining racism with virtual Reality. Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab.Google Scholar
USG Executive Office of the President (2016, October). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In Owen, R., Heintz, M., & Bessant, J. (Eds.), Responsible innovation. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Weil, F., & Haarkötter, H. (2014, December). Ethics for the Internet of Things, International Review of Ethics 22.Google Scholar
White House (2016, October). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. White Paper, Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, 2016.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. S. (2009). Adaptive policymaking: Evolving and applying emergent solutions for U.S. communications policy. Federal Communications Law Journal 61(3) Article 2.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. S., & Schultze, S. (2012). A deference to protocol. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 31(689), 704–705.Google Scholar