prepared by mary rundle and chris conley

8/14/2019 Prepared by Mary Rundle and Chris Conley

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prepared-by-mary-rundle-and-chris-conley 1/80

Prepared by Mary Rundle and Chris ConleyGeneva Net DialogueUNESCO: Paris, 2007Ethical Implicationsof Emerging Technologies:A SurveyThe ideas, facts and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the

authors. They do not necessarily refl ect the views of UNESCO and do notcommit the Organization.Recommended catalogue entry:UNESCO. Information for All Programme (IFAP).« Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies: A Survey ».Edited by the Information Society Division, Communication and InformationSector (Editor: Boyan Radoykov) – Paris: UNESCO, 2007 - 92 p ; 21 cm.I - TitleII – UNESCOIII – Information for All ProgrammePublished in 2007 by the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and CulturalOrganization,

7, place de Fontenoy F-75352 Paris 07 SP, Paris, FranceCoordinator of the publication: Boyan RadoykovUNESCOAll rights reservedCI-2007/WS/2 - CLD 31112ETHICAL IMPLICATIONSOF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES:A SURVEYPrepared by Mary Rundle and Chris Conley ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn the course of compiling this report, a number of prominent members of theworldwide technology and infoethics communities have shared their expertiseand perspectives with us, including: Hal Abelson, Ben Adida, Ang Peng Hwa,

Kader Asmal, Ted Barnett, Stefan Bechtold, Peter Berghammer, Scott Bradner,Stefan Brands, Kim Cameron, Shunling Chen, David Clark, John Clippinger,Urs Gasser, Lauren Gelman, Georg Greve, Dick Hardt, Dewayne Hendricks,Chris Hoofnagle, Hai Huang, Ben Laurie, Ronaldo Lemos, Lawrence Lessig,Jamie Lewis, Abdel-Hamid Mamdouh, Désirée Milošević, Nicholas Negroponte,Cory Ondrejka, David Reed, Eric Rescorla, Jonathan Robin, Judit Rius Sanjuan,Wendy Seltzer, Lara Srivastava, William Terrill, Paul Trevithick, Jake Wachman,David Weinberger, Ian Wilkes, and Jonathan Zittrain.* Mary Rundle is a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard LawSchool and a non-resident fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford LawSchool. Chris Conley holds a master’s degree in computer science from M.I.T. and is currena J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School, where he focuses on the intersection of law and

technology. This paper has been produced under Geneva Net Dialogue, a Geneva-based,open, international association whose mission is “to lend its support to the operationof human rights in the information society by improving ties between the technologycommunity, the policymaking community, and civil society at the international level.”Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies:A SurveyMary Rundle and Chris ConleyForeword 4Introduction 6The Technologies as a Short Story 8Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies 11The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies 28The Semantic Web and Other Metadata 28

Digital Identity Management 31Biometrics 38Radio Frequency Identifi cation 41



Sensors 50The Geospatial Web and Location-Based Services 55Mesh Networking 58Grid Computing 62New Computing Technologies 70Table: Summary of Infoethics Concerns 73The Short Story Revisited 75

Recommendations 78ANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an interview with David P. Reed) 82Table of Contents4IntroductionThe Internet boom has provided many benefits for society, allowing the creation of new tootheir ethical and societal consequences, which this report refers to as “infoethical” chal1. The Semantic Web and Other Metadata – Metadata, or data about data, enables greater aut2. Digital Identity Management and Biometrics – Digital identity management allows the ama1 UNESCO is increasingly using the term “Knowledge Societies”, which reflects adevelopment-oriented, people-centred and pluralistic vision of the future societies.

However, for the purposes of this study, the term “Information Society” is used throughoutthe document.7Introduction3. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Sensors – These technologies monitor the phys4. The Geospatial Web and Location-Based Services – Both of these technologies serve to as5. Mesh Networking – Mesh networking facilitates the formation of networks across areas wi6. Grid Computing – This technology may allow the world’s computing power and data storageresources to be pooled for people to access as needed.7. New Computing Technologies – Combined with the technologies listed above, a powerful miand means of communication. Taking these objectives as a given, the survey employs them astrend surveyed, the report contains a short chapter drafted in lay terms to provide an ove8

The Technologies as a Short StoryIn the short history of the Information Society, technology has moved from making sense ofholding promise for a seamlessly integrated Internet to reach all regions of the globe. Fometadata. This new metadata language offers predictability in a cyberspace of ever growingcalendar, or pay taxes on online transactions. Hence, records are being developed to referetc. for one persona; pseudonym, favorite songs, etc. for another). In this way, metadata9The Technologies as a Short Storythe translation of unique attributes – for example his fingerprints, iris pattern, or walkperson can thereby be uniquely identified and then abstracted as data. Similarly, both radobjects or people using cheap, digital technology: A person bearing an RFID chip can easilLikewise, a specific product (say, a bottle of shampoo) can be tracked from its productioninformation can be used for a range of purposes, from promoting efficiency in the supply crespond that these problems can be resolved as the metadata languages are refined to add din part by the importation of the physical world into cyberspace. Sensors are enabling thedigitization of the physical world – measuring observable qualities such as oxygen level ocyberspace, flesh is put on the bones of previously catalogued ideas. Different contexts pMeanwhile, just as cyberspace is importing the real world, it is itself being exported to2 Such issues point to the problem of technological neutrality – that is, the question of10with relevant information (e.g., home prices, crime rates, or hiking trails). The line seppeer network spontaneously, offers one means of extending the range of connectivity withouperhaps eventually extending a global network to every location on earth in ubiquitous netproblem could be addressed by grid computing, whereby storage and computing power are poolnetworking and grid computing come about, the Information Society would find itself in a w

may continue growing exponentially, supported by new technologies such as optical or quanttechnology can also be used to limit rather than to promote human rights and dignity. Thus11



Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are an increasingly powerful force in thhave also become a dominant mechanism for conducting private affairs and participating inwhich may hinder it. It is therefore imperative that emerging technologies be examined inlight of their impact on the exercise of human rights. As described above, the infoethicsthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights,4 establishes the fundamentalpriority of putting3 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law (viewed November 8, 2006).4 UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

Infoethics Goals for Neutral TechnologiesInfoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies12Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsTechnology can serve to promote or restrict human rights. The Information Society should famong all. In discussing human rights, we take as a starting point the Universal DeclaratiARTICLE 2:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, withoutopinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no dististatus of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, tICTs enable the collection and parsing of information and, as such, allow myriad categoriz

and socio-economic status, among others. From an infoethics perspective, it is important tARTICLE 3:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.The right to life, liberty and security of person is one of the most fundamental rights inInfoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies

13to medical information. Does a right to life encompass universal access to these benefitsstep in to allow that person to have access to all of the necessities of life, including fARTICLE 7:All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protectito provide all people with equal opportunity and access, without discrimination, serve thiARTICLE 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocen

international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposData that is gathered or analyzed bytechnology is increasingly used inInfoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies14judicial proceedings. When evidencestemming from the application oftechnology contradicts a person’s testimony,a dilemma arises as to whichaccount deserves more credence.Despite the tendency of society to trustevidence produced by machines onthe basis of general statistical accuracy,computer code may carry mistakes orbe corrupted. In this sense, then, thereare infoethics nuances in the use oftechnology to establish “proof”.ARTICLE 12:No one shall be subjected to arbitraryinterference with his privacy,family, home or correspondence,nor to attacks upon his honor andreputation. Everyone has the rightto the protection of the law againstsuch interference or attacks.ICTs can serve to protect or limit

the right of privacy. For example,encryption technologies can makecommunication between private



parties confi dential, or they can bemodifi ed to allow outside interests(such as governments) to interceptthis communication. Likewise, surveillancetechnologies can serve toguard privacy, but they may also beused as tools to infringe on the privacy

of others.ICTs can aff ord anonymity, allowingpeople to feel comfortable sharingideas they might not air if their nameswere associated with these ideas. Inthis sense, privacy and anonymity incommunication bear a close relationshipto the right to seek, receive andimpart information (Article 19) as wellas the right to associate or assemble(Article 20).Eff orts to protect privacy, however,

may impose other costs on society,and eff orts to protect other rights mayhave privacy implications. For example,any protection that technologyprovides for anonymous, secure communicationmay limit the eff ectivenessof protection against attacks on aperson’s “honor and reputation.”Privacy concerns are also raised bythe increasing collection of personaldata by private and governmentalentities. A question receiving growingattention is the duty that private

companies have to safeguard consumers’personal data, especially in theinternational context of the Internet.There are also questions regardinggovernmental treatment of personaldata, particularly concerning whatrules apply when diff erent governmentsshare such information.55 The United States and the European Union are currently embroiled in a dispute concerningthe disclosure and use of information about airline passengers. See “Air Security Talks FaDaily Mail, October 2, 2006, p. 32.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies15Of course, there are questions as towhat constitutes “arbitrary” and “interference”.If a policy applies acrossthe board and is supported by whatseem to be reasonable arguments, isit “arbitrary”? If surveillance poses noinconvenience, is it “interference”?6ARTICLE 18:Everyone has the right to freedomof thought, conscience and religion;this right includes freedomto change his religion or belief,

and freedom, either alone or incommunity with others and inpublic or private, to manifest his



religion or belief in teaching, practice,worship and observance.ICTs and thought, conscience andreligion can interact in various ways.First, and most simply, ICTs can beused to further religious interestsand to allow persons to communicate

on issues of faith. If, however,the use of technology is contraryto beliefs, then the observance ofthese beliefs may be threatenedby making the use of technologymandatory or practically necessaryto function in the modern world.ARTICLE 19:Everyone has the right to freedomof opinion and expression; thisright includes freedom to holdopinions without interference and

to seek, receive and impart informationand ideas through anymedia and regardless of frontiers.As with the right of privacy, theright to freedom of opinion andexpression in the Information Societyis tightly intertwined with ICTs.Technologies can open channels bywhich information may be sharedand opinions expressed; it can alsobe used to restrict the informationavailable7 and to identify and interferewith people expressing alternative

opinions.8 In this sense, there is a linkbetween privacy (Article 12) and thefreedom to seek, receive and impartinformation.Moreover, the right to freedomof opinion and expression losesvalue without the ability actually tocommunicate one’s views to others.ICTs can be used to create a publicforum where this communicationcan take place, or it can restrictexpression by placing limits on a6 See Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, New York: Basic Books, 1999, Ch.11: “Privacy”.7 For example, many countries currently use fi ltering software to limit the information tcitizens can access on the Internet. See http://www.opennetinitiative.org/.8 See, e.g., http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16402 (describing the prosecutiondissidents based on information provided by Yahoo!).Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies16Anonymous ExpressionBy Wendy Seltzer9Anonymous expression has a long and distinguished tradition. Voltaire and GeorgeEliot wrote under pseudonyms. Support for the ratifi cation of the U.S. Constitutionwas procured through anonymous articles in the Federalist Papers. Modern-day

bloggers and mailing-list contributors may not use the same fl owery language andelegant pseudonyms, but their freedom of expression is no less important. The technologythey use can facilitate either identifi cation or anonymity – and that will aff ect



the range and content of online expression.Anonymity can make possible or enhance many expressive activities. The freedomto impart information thus includes the right to speak anonymously; freedom of assemblyincludes the right to associate without giving a name or without revealinggroup membership to outsiders; and the freedom to seek and receive informationincludes the right to listen, watch, and read privately.Protections for anonymity are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters

to hide their identities frees them to express minority views critical to an informeddemocratic discourse. Otherwise, fear that their identity may be uncovered and thatthey may be persecuted on account of their speech, may prevent those in political,ethnic, religious, or other minority groups from speaking at all. That silence in turndeprives the whole public of access to those ideas.person’s ability to communicate withothers. The right to seek, receive,and impart information, therefore, isclosely tied to freedom of assemblyand association (Article 20) sinceaccessing and disseminating ideasoften entail connecting with others

in the Information Society.9 Wendy Seltzer is Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, and a fellowthe Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies17ARTICLE 20:(1) Everyone has the right tofreedom of peaceful assemblyand association.(2) No one may be compelled tobelong to an association.The right of association is aff ectedby ICTs in various ways. Technology

may serve to enable this right byproviding the means of facilitatingcontacts, coordinating exchanges,and interacting with other persons inan association. However, technologycan also hinder this right, if used toidentify and target members of anassociation, or to disrupt or otherwiseprevent peaceful assembly.Technology also presents a threat tothe right to refrain from joining anassociation. This “right to be alone”depends in no small part on theindividual’s choice not to interactwith others. Technology can infringeupon that right, requiring that aperson associate with others in orderto obtain the full benefi ts available tomembers of society. It can also enablethe identifi cation and stigmatizationof those who choose not to join agiven association.As noted above, the rights to enjoyprivacy (Article 12) and to seek, receive,and impart information (Article 19)

are linked to this package of rights– with technology reinforcing thisrelationship.



ARTICLE 21:(1) Everyone has the right totake part in the governmentof his country, directly orthrough freely chosen representatives.(2) Everyone has the right ofequal access to public service

in his country.(3) The will of the people shallbe the basis of the authorityof government; this will shallbe expressed in periodic andgenuine elections which shallbe by universal and equalsuff rage and shall be held bysecret vote or by equivalentfree voting procedures.Democratic elections, like many otherfacets of modern life, are becoming

increasingly reliant on technology.Political candidates rely on media andcommunication networks to expresstheir views and coordinate supporters.Candidates are not alone indoing so; politically active groups arealso increasingly using the Internet toobtain grass-roots support for theirproposals and to build a constituencyand thus a voice.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies18Political use of ICTs can be harmful,

however, where technology is abusedto further a political candidacy oragenda.10 Furthermore, the increasinguse of technology in politics canpresent a barrier to entry, where certainclasses of persons are eff ectivelybarred from political activity if ICTsare not broadly available for theiruse. Finally, as electronic voting isadopted as a means for carrying outelections, security against corruption isincreasingly dependent on specialists.ARTICLE 26:(1) Everyone has the right toeducation. Education shall befree, at least in the elementaryand fundamental stages.Elementary education shallbe compulsory. Technical andprofessional education shallbe made generally availableand higher education shallbe equally accessible to all onthe basis of merit.(2) Education shall be directed to

the full development of thehuman personality and to thestrengthening of respect for



human rights and fundamentalfreedoms. It shall promoteunderstanding, tolerance andfriendship among all nations,racial or religious groups, andshall further the activities ofthe United Nations for the

maintenance of peace.(3) Parents have a prior right tochoose the kind of educationthat shall be given to theirchildren.Education is becoming reliant on technologyin two ways. First, educationabout technology itself is growingin perceived importance and valueas technology emerges as a dominantfacet of business and thus aviable career route for many learners.

Second, technology is used to enableeducation on a vast range of subjects,allowing learners to improve theiraccess to outside sources of information,use multimedia educationalmaterials, and interact with teachersand fellow learners in new ways.For these reasons, the single greatestthreat that ICTs pose to the right toeducation is the possibility that theywill serve to increase stratifi cationbased on income level and accessto technology. As ICTs become a key

component in an educational system,learners who are unable to obtainaccess to the technology have fewer10 For example, staff members of several members of the U.S. Congress have altered onlineencyclopedia entries about their employer, sometimes removing facts that cast the Senatoror Representative in a negative light. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4695376.stm.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies19resources available to them; moreover,the quality of non-technologicaleducational resources may decline asa result of a greater focus on onlineeducation. Encouraging programmesthat seek to prevent this result shouldbe a primary concern of governmentsand infoethicists.11Finally, technology can impact theability of parents to choose the educationpresented to their children.ICTs can provide a broad rangeof options, allowing schools andparents to create individually craftedcurricula that take advantage of thewide range of options. Conversely,

however, parents may fi nd it diffi cultto limit the information that theirchildren access as part of their education



precisely because of the ease ofaccess provided by technology.ARTICLE 27:(1) Everyone has the right freelyto participate in the culturallife of the community, toenjoy the arts and to share in

scientifi c advancement andits benefi ts.(2) Everyone has the right to theprotection of the moral andmaterial interests resultingfrom any scientifi c, literary orartistic production of whichhe is the author.Perhaps the greatest promise of ICTsis the concept of a true informationcommons, a medium that allowsfor the increasingly rapid discovery

and distribution of new ideas. At thesame time, technology can serveas a barrier to the spread of newideas. For example, ideas that areonly available on a specifi c mediummay infringe on the rights of thosewho have no access to the requiredtechnology. Furthermore, even thosewith access to the Internet and otherforms of ICTs can be blocked fromfull participation in cultural life bytechnological means, for exampletechnology implementing data use

restrictions.Technology also poses a threatto existing intellectual propertyregimes and thus to the protection ofrights-holders interests. File-sharingnetworks and other activities madepossible by new technology havemade the infringement of copyrightmuch easier to eff ectuate and harderto prevent or prosecute.In order to encourage a vibrantcultural life for all, infoethics must11 Two such programmes are the “One Laptop per Child” programme at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (see text box, infra, and http://laptop.media.mit.edu/) and theGlobal Education and Learning Community (see http://www.sun.com/products-nsolutions/edu/gelc/).Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies20consider the role that technologicaladvancement may play in strengtheningor weakening the enforcementof intellectual property rights.Access to Information andCommunicationIn order for human rights to be

fully operational in the InformationSociety, people need access to information,which in turn requires access



to the means by which it is delivered.Therefore, infoethics goals must alsofocus on three major categories ofaccess to information and communicationthat are essential to the exerciseof human rights: (i) the public domainof knowledge and creative works;

(ii) diversity of content on informationand communication networks; and(iii) unfettered access to such information(including the means of deliveryand the ability to use content). _ Public DomainOne primary goal of infoethics isto extend the public domain ofinformation; that is, to defi ne an illustrativeset of knowledge, information,cultural and creative works thatshould be made available to every

person. This category contains, but isnot necessarily limited to:• Government documents, allowingan informed democracyto observe and evaluate theactions of their elected leaders,and thus allowing all personsto participate in the process ofgovernment;• Information about personaldata retained by entities, allowingindividuals to understandthe extent to which actions may

or may not be private;• Scientifi c and historical data,allowing all persons full access tothe knowledge that they need tointerpret events and to furtherthe progress of knowledge;• Information relating to healthhazards, allowing persons tounderstand the risks to whichthey may be exposed and to actaccordingly;• Information on the stateof technology, allowing thepublic to consider how theInformation Society might guardagainst information warfare andother threats to human rights.• Creative works that are partof a shared cultural base, allowingpersons to participateactively in their community andcultural history.UNESCO’s Recommendation concerningthe Promotion and Use of Multilingualismand Universal Access to Cyberspace,

Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies21adopted at its 32nd session in October



2003, provides the following defi nitionof public domain information: “Publicdomain information is publicly accessibleinformation, the use of whichdoes not infringe any legal right, orany obligation of confi dentiality. It thusrefers on the one hand to the realm of

all works or objects of related rights,which can be exploited by everybodywithout any authorization, for instancebecause protection is not grantedunder national or international law, orbecause of the expiration of the term ofprotection. It refers on the other handto public data and offi cial informationproduced and voluntarily made availableby governments or internationalorganizations.”The extent of the public domain is

frequently contested. Public accessto government documents and deliberationsis naturally restricted bythe need for confi dentiality in certainaff airs; similarly, access to personalinformation is constrained by privacyconcerns. Some nations choose toremove certain content from thepublic domain, deeming exposure tothis material harmful to the populationat large.12 Scientifi c research andknowledge may be limited by governmentregulation, often due to ethical

concerns.13 Intellectual property lawsfrequently reduce the public domainby granting exclusive license overcreative works to the holder of the intellectualproperty rights, with varyingdegrees of fair use permitted.14However, infoethics perhaps neednot determine whether any given linebetween “public domain” and restrictedinformation or intellectual property is“right.” Instead, infoethics should focuson ensuring that information that isclearly part of the public domain isavailable to all persons. Information onhealth risks of new technologies shouldbe readily available and distributed toall potential users. Creative works thatare part of the public domain should beclearly indicated as such. Governmentsshould allow access to documents thatare not properly secret,15 including12 In Germany, for example, content promoting neo-Nazi organizations or denying theHolocaust is prohibited. See Deutsche Welle, “Trial Highlights Limits of Free Speech inGermany,” available at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1896750,00.html(describing the criminal trial of Ernst Zündel on charges of “inciting racial hatred” base

on his denial of the Holocaust).13 For example, the UN has recently passed a resolution urging Member States to prohibithuman cloning in any form, but it was unable to reach an agreement to pass a binding form



of the same resolution. See United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, U.N. Doc. No.A/59/516/Add.1 (2005).14 See Ruth Okediji, “Towards an International Fair Use Doctrine,” 39 Columbia J. Transnat75 (2000).15 South Africa provides individuals a right of action to obtain information held by privaSee Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act No. 2 of 2000 (The Republic of South AfricInfoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies

22making those documents availableover commonly used communicationand information media. _ Diversity of Content onInformation NetworksICTs also can have a great impact onthe diversity of content on informationnetworks. In an ideal society,the content available on informationnetworks should refl ect the diversityof legitimate preferences of the

population. In addition, the informationnetworks should be open tocontent from all sources, allowingany interested person to be a creatorof content rather than a mere consumer.Broadcast media, such as televisionand radio, allow content to be rapidlydelivered to consumers in distantplaces. However, broadcast mediatends to cater to the populationsegments with the most economicpower; the substantial startup costsof operating a television channel or

radio station deter the distribution ofcontent targeted at niche audiences,16and existing channels may have noincentive to accept content fromother sources or to provide diversecontent.17In Brazil, observers have expressedconcern about the diversity ofcontent available on cellular phonenetworks.18 Cellular phone networksare currently the dominant means ofdistributing interactive content; while45% of the population has access tocellular phones, only 12% has accessto the Internet. Not surprisingly,then, cellular phone networks areincreasingly becoming carriers of variousforms of content beyond voicetelephony; music, video, interactivegames, and other material can beaccessed on cellular phone networks.Thus, as with traditional media enterprises,cellular phone companiesmay have exclusive control over thecontent available to a large fraction

of the population, and therefore havethe potential to promote or limit thedelivery of available content.



ICTs off er the potential to overcomethese obstacles to content diversity.16 Some nations have attempted to address this problem through regulation. In Germany,for example, each state must either provide a public network supplying diverse content ormust regulate private networks to ensure that they provide a diversity of content matchedto the interests of subsets of the population. See Uli Widmaier, “German BroadcastRegulation: A Model for a New First Amendment?”, 21 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 75, 93-99

(1998).17 The United States attempted to regulate the relationship between television networks anthe creators of television programming, but has abandoned that eff ort. See Christopher S.Yoo, “Beyond Network Neutrality,” 19 Harvard J. L. & Tech. 1, Fall 2005, p. 49 n.188.18 Email conversation with Ronaldo Lemos, Creative Commons Brazil, February 2006.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies23In principle, ICTs substantially reducethe cost of producing and distributingcontent, allowing diversity ofboth creative works and creators.In allowing the generation of more

interactive content, they transformconsumers into active participants. _ Unfettered Access toInformationEstablishing a base of public domaininformation and diversity of contenton information networks are laudablegoals. However, the fulfi llmentof the spirit of these goals dependson the actual ability of persons toaccess and use the content and informationthat the public domain anddiversity make available. Thus, one

of the dominant goals of infoethicsis to achieve universal access to alllegal content. There are two, largelydistinct, components to this goal:ensuring that all persons are able toobtain the content, and ensuring thatall persons are able to use the contentthat they obtain.The ability to obtain content requiresaccess to the information networksor other channels of distribution,which can be accomplished eitherby increasing access to a particularchannel or by providing additionalchannels of distribution. For instance,a country whose citizens have limitedaccess to computers and the Internetcannot achieve the goal of universalaccess to information simply byensuring that content is availableonline. Instead, it must determine thebest course of actually making thatcontent available to its population.This might be achieved by deployingnew technologies like web-enabled

mobile phones to increase connectivity;it might also be accomplishedby ensuring that the content is also



available in other forms to those whocannot access it online.Diversity of content is heavily relianton maintaining “network neutrality”so that no single entity can serve tolimit access to (legal) content.19 Undernetwork neutrality, each node on the

network is content-blind, passingalong all traffi c without concern asto its type or content. Thus, if fully implemented,network neutrality wouldrequire that all nodes on a network(including Internet service providers,or ISPs) pass along traffi c withoutconcern for (or even identifi cation of )its origin, destination, and content.Complete neutrality, however, carriesits own hazards: a network that isentirely content-neutral encourages

the diversity of legal content, but italso permits various forms of illegal19 See, e.g., Mark N. Cooper ed., Open Architecture as Communications Policy, Center forInternet and Society at Stanford Law School, 2004.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies24content, ranging from pornographyto spam and viruses. Infoethics shouldthus seek to shape the future of ICTsto retain the positive features ofnetwork neutrality while encouragingdevelopments that limit its harms.20A key question here is whether edge

devices might better address harmsthan could changes to the networkitself since edge devices may bebetter technically and are more likelyto rest under the user’s control.Search engines present another accesspoint where the practical accessibilityof content may be limited. Given thesheer volume of data available on theInternet, many users rely on search enginesto locate desired content; thus,any content that cannot be accessedvia search engines may be eff ectivelyinaccessible. Like ISPs, search enginesthus have the potential to act as achokepoint and to aff ect the diversityof content available on an informationnetwork, promoting some contentby placing it atop a list of searchresults while selectively fi lteringother content. Google, for example,has fi ltered searches conducted onits French and German languagesites, removing matches that link toNazi or anti-Semitic content.21 Again,

however, this capability is not ethicallyquestionable per se; it may simplyrequire oversight to ensure that it is



being utilized to remove only illegitimatecontent.22If information is distributed via ICTs,access to it fundamentally requiresaccess to the technology itself.Increasingly, projects are beinglaunched to remedy lack of ICTs

access, providing a solution that maybe more cost-eff ective and morebenefi cial than projects to provideinformation in various offl ine formats.The One Laptop per Child Foundation,for instance, seeks to leverage advancingtechnology to producecheap, low-powered computers withwireless network capacity that can bewidely distributed in poorer segmentsof the world.23 (See Text Box, below.)Moreover, as will be discussed in the

sections that follow, the problem ofexclusion could diminish as the costof networked computing drops.Still, even if the cost of ICTs declinesto a point where today’s technology20 See Jonathan Zittrain, “Without a Net,” in Legal Aff airs (January - February 2006), avhttp://www.legalaff airs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_zittrain_janfeb06.msp.21 See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/fi ltering/google/results1.html; cf. Isabell Rorive,“Freedom of Expression in the Information Society,” Working Paper for the PreparatoryGroup on Human Rights, the Rule of Law and the Information Society 8, Sept. 15, 2004(discussing censorship by search engines in France, Germany, and China).22 In addition, users could confi gure personal fi lters to prevent exposure to undesiredcontent.

23 See http://laptop.org/.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies25becomes aff ordable for all, there willalways be new advancements thatbegin with limited accessibility. Inthis regard, the process of ICTs diff usionwarrants attention.In the development of informationnetworks, it is important to ensurethat standards organizations andthe like are not overly infl uencedby particular agendas. Allowing anyone group to capture a regulatory orstandard-setting organization preventsthese organizations from achieving abalance between interests. Designersof network technologies could bemandated or given incentives to off erthe greatest overall benefi t to society,rather than to support the demands ofa specifi c group (e.g., owners of copyrightedcontent).Ensuring that all persons are ableto use the content that they obtain

poses other challenges. Even wherecontent is “available,” it is of little valueunless it can in fact be understood



and used. Thus, universal access toinformation requires that contentbe distributed multilingually, or thattechnology be deployed to translatecontent into a usable form. Similarly,technology can be used to make informationaccessible to the physically

disabled. In addition, content shouldbe easily machine-readable; publicdomain content in particular shouldbe released in a format that is broadlyused and does not require specifi capplications or devices to access.Infoethics Goals for Neutral Technologies26One Laptop per Child: The $100 LaptopBy Samuel KleinThe “One Laptop per Child” (OLPC) initiative, conceived at the MIT Media Lab and fi rstannounced in January 2005, is an eff ort to mass-produce cheap, durable laptops and to

distribute them throughout the world to improve education for children. The stated goalof the project is “to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore,experiment, and express themselves.” If all goes as planned, these opportunities will beprovided entirely through the laptops, which, equipped with free software, will be tools fcreating and receiving content.The project to date has focused on developing cheap, durable hardware designs, particularla low-cost display – with a target production cost of $100 per laptop in its early stageslater) – and building a network of partners to help produce the necessary hardware andsoftware. The project relies on economies of scale: The production schedule calls for at l5 million laptops. The laptop will have built-in wireless capability, will work as part ofmesh network when there is no access to the global Internet, and will support innovativepower sources, including winding by hand.The laptops are meant to be widely distributed within a given area, one to every child

in a school or region. Distribution is to be carried out through schools via nationalgovernments. The OLPC Chairman, Nicholas Negroponte, says the team has had initialdiscussions with offi cials in China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria, and Thailathe team recognizes, however, that unless a country can provide one laptop for everychild in its population, hard decisions about where and how to distribute the laptopsmust be made.There are philosophical goals to the project, in addition to the technical ones. Laptopswere chosen in part because they can be taken home and can engage the whole family.A stated intent is that children will own their laptops, though these may be among themost expensive and novel personal items in their neighborhood.24 From the One Laptop Per Child FAQ: http://laptop.org/faq.en_US.html (viewed November8, 2006).27The development of a deployment and education plan – from the design of softwareand content to be included on the machine, to research and suggestions on how toimplement an eff ective “One Laptop per Child” teaching environment – is one of the morerecent project goals to take form. OLPC is currently soliciting input on how to proceedwith and study this goal.25 While OLPC is an educational project, this eff ort is not simpa question of pedagogy. Distributing millions of laptops to areas where computers arescarce, and providing every member of a community’s youngest generation with “aworld view” and with exotic tools and knowledge completely foreign to their elders,disrupts the status quo in a signifi cant way.The question of how to select content, distribute the laptops, and recommend their uses,so as to produce desired change without unwanted social and cultural upheaval, is a cruciaquestion and one on which many groups may wish to engage. For an initiative of its size, O

is unusually open to suggestions; the project has a publicly editable list of tasks that ia request for panels of thinkers to study some of these issues and propose improvementsand recommendations.26



25 From http://wiki.laptop.org/wiki/OLPC_software_task_list#Eductional_community_engagemen(viewed November 8, 2006): “We propose including other intellectuals, artists, civic leadeto provide a diversity of experience and expertise.”26 Id., http://wiki.laptop.org/wiki/OLPC_software_task_list#Strategic_research (viewed Nov8, 2006).28With the increasing importance of ICTs

in the world comes a growing needto recognize the ethical ramifi cationsof new technologies. Moreover, therapid rate of technological changedemands that we understand emergingtechnologies and their potentialeff ects as they are being developed,and not wait until the consequencesare manifest before we prepare forthem. By understanding tomorrow’stechnologies in light of infoethicsgoals, society can better anticipate

their eff ects and deploy them in amanner that leverages their benefi tswhile mitigating potential harms.The following case studies highlightsome of these technologies and fl agmany of the infoethics concerns thataccompany them.The Semantic Weband Other MetadataWhat the Semantic Web IsThe Internet was conceived as amechanism to allow humans to initiatethe exchange of text, images, and

other information. With the exponentialgrowth of content available on theInternet, however, this is increasinglybecoming impractical. Search enginesseek to mitigate this problem by providinga tool to navigate the web, butthey provide only a partial solution. Tomake the web fully navigable, interoperablemetadata, or data about data, isrequired. This metadata can also serve tomake the web more machine- readable,allowing computers to evolve fromdumb tools to intelligent agents. Thesemantic web27 promises to off er suchmetadata.The Ethical Challenges ofEmerging Technologies -Case Studies27 The Semantic Web is an offi cial project of the World Wide Web Consortium, which wasfounded by Tim Berners-Lee, the web’s inventor.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies29How the Semantic WebWorksThe Internet existed for nearly three

decades before it took off as a popularmedium for information and communication.28 Although the Internet was



based on common computer “languages”,or code, from the start (TCP/IP,SMTP, etc.), what triggered its uptakewas the royalty-free nature of the languagesof the “World Wide Web” (web)– that is, HTML and HTTP – and thefact that HTML was particularly userfriendly.

These two languages allowedthe “loose coupling” of machinesinvolved in exchanging information– meaning any web client seekinginformation could talk to any webserver, which could then providethat information remotely, in a formthat people could enjoy. Internetusage increased dramatically, and thisphenomenon spurred the creation ofmore content, which in turn gave riseto more exchange.

Given the high volume of web content,the semantic web is being designed“to create a universal medium forthe exchange of data”29 – using thesame loose coupling properties forprogrammatic data as there was forhuman-rendered data with HTML.This new language should providepredictability in a cyberspace ofever growing exchanges, with thevocabulary of metadata lendinggreater precision as computers accessand analyze content directly.

The semantic web combines a setof computer languages30 to providemachine-readable descriptions ofweb content. This metadata may becreated by humans or computers,and is designed to provide contextabout the content without requiringa person or machine to actually parsethe content. Once a piece of informationis tagged, the semantic web canreason about it and develop contextualmeanings based on observationsabout connections that the pieceof information has with others. Thisenables machines to search web sitesand carry out tasks in a standardizedway.Although the name refers to “web”, thisinitiative is geared toward enablingmachines to handle data among arange of Internet applications.28 See History of the Internet (Wikipedia entry), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hi(viewed November 8, 2006).29 See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities#SemanticWebActivity.30 For example, Resource Description Framework (RDF), Web Ontology Language (OWL),

and Extensible Markup Language (XML).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies30



Ramifi cations and ConcernsThe wealth of content available oninformation networks, particularly theInternet, is useful only if people canactually fi nd and access the informationthat they need. The semanticweb allows people to use computers

as agents to search for appropriatecontent based on a wide range ofcriteria – which could include thepublic domain or intellectual propertystatus of the content, alternate sourcesof the content in diff erent formats orlanguages, or even the existence ofevidence serving to refute the viewoff ered in the content.The wealth of content is closelyrelated to the Internet explosion,which is often credited to the “network

neutrality” principle that holds thatall traffi c should be treated equally.Oddly, the semantic web could cutagainst this neutrality by equippingparties with tools to fi lter Internetcontent based on its associatedmetadata: ISPs, routers, or searchengines could use the metadata todistinguish between types of contentand grant preferential treatment tocertain traffi c, raising barriers to entryfor new service or content providers.In this regard, the semantic web’s

machine-readable labels could markcontent for discrimination and reducethe ability of users to generate andshare material.Moreover, some would contend that,in giving users the ability to accessonly the content that they desire, thesemantic web could damage publicdiscourse. The theory here is that fullparticipation in society requires aforum in which a person can make hisvoice heard, but that the semantic weband other technologies allow otherusers fully to customize their experiencesand to receive only the contentthat they explicitly request. In otherwords, the semantic web enablesend-user insularity and so indirectlydestroys the forum. Here again, theworry is that the semantic web couldin fact harm the very connectivity thatit was designed to promote.31More theoretically, machines mustbe programmed to categorize andassign values to information – so that,

for example, personal data can bedistinguished from weather patternsand fl agged as warranting privacy. In



31 See Cass R. Sunstein, “The Daily We,” Boston Review (Summer 2000), available at http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html. Others would argue, however, that even aseemingly low rate of exposure to diff ering views via the Net (e.g., 15 per cent) may suggreater public dialogue than had previously been the case. See work by Eszter Hargittai,Cross-Ideological Conversations among Bloggers, http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/25/cross-ideological-conversations-among-bloggers/ visited November 8, 2006 (describingwork by Eszter Hargittai, Jason Gallo and Sean Zehnder analyzing cross-linkages among

liberal and conservative political blogs).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies31this sense, there are risks inherent indesigning tools simply to exchangeinformation without simultaneouslycoding them to assign a highervalue to data relating to humans.Safeguarding human rights mayrequire programming computers toput personal data on a higher plane.Still, one should not overstate the

dangers of the semantic web. Afterall, these harms are possible evenwithout metadata and are far fromcertain to occur even with metadata.On balance, it seems the semanticweb will support the goal of promotingaccess to information by makingexisting content far easier to identify,locate, and use.Digital IdentityManagementThe previous case study discussedhow metadata is allowing increasingly

sophisticated machine-to-machineexchanges. This increase in communicationbetween machines createsthe potential for good or harmful consequences,such as the lowering oftransaction costs in commerce or thelaunching of malicious virus attacks.This section fi rst looks at how theautomated exchange of data isdriving the need for digital identitymanagement tools that aff ord bettercontrol over the fl ow of personalinformation. It sets the stage for thenext case study, which explores how,through biometrics, metadata cango beyond a person’s diverse digitalpersonae to pinpoint an embodiedperson.What Digital IdentityManagement IsSimply stated, digital identity managementconcerns the control ofdigitized information pertaining toa person. This information is sometimesreferred to as “personal data,” or

“personally identifi able information.”This latter term more precisely suggeststhat the data can be linked to



the specifi c individual involved.As originally designed, the architectureof the Internet did not provide a mechanismto verify, or authenticate, theidentities of users. Its designers wereworking in a diff erent time and culturefrom today’s online environment, with

that early community of Internet userscomprising essentially a highly cooperative,high-trust society of computerscientists. The Internet they brought tobear refl ected this culture.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies32With the explosion in Internetusage drawing strangers to interactat unprecedented rates, it is notsurprising that the once trustfulatmosphere of the Internet has

changed, and that people are startingto view the space with growingreserve. Put another way, the Internethas undergone a sort of urbanization,where more and more people aregravitating toward it for its benefi ts,but where the “traditional” sense ofcommunity has broken down andpeople fi nd they must be on guard.Computer scientists are starting tosay: “In retrospect, we should havedesigned an authentication layerinto the Internet. Now, with the

Internet scaled up large, and with somuch commerce passing over it, thepotential for fraud is enormous.”32E-commerce statistics bear witness tothis shift. Statistics published last yearshowed a sharp drop in the numberof consumers who feel comfortableparticipating in e-commerce.33People have learned to questionwhether the person or entity at theother end of a transaction is indeedwho he, she, or it claims to be, andpeople wonder if they can actuallyhold that other party accountableshould something in the exchangego awry. By responding to an emailor fi lling out an online form, will aperson be a victim of phishing orpharming?34At the same time, it is natural forInternet users to lament the fact thatthey currently have to rememberpasswords and fi ll out all sorts of formswhen reserving a rental car, purchasinga book, or engaging in some other

common transaction online. Althoughthis is a repetitive and often frustratingtask, people have been “trained” to



provide information in this way, anddo so without thinking.3532 Interview with Paul Trevithick, Project Lead of the Eclipse Foundation’s Higgins TrustFramework project, August 2005.33 Riva Richmond, “Internet Scams, Breaches Drive Buyers Off the Web, Survey Finds,” WallStreet Journal, June 23, 2005, p. B3, reporting on a Gartner study of 5000 online consumerThe article states that more than 42% of online shoppers and 28% of those who bank

online are cutting back on these activities due to security and privacy issues.34 David Bank and Riva Richmond explain in “Information Security: Where the Dangers Are,”Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2005: “In ‘phishing’ scams, fraudsters send emails that appeto come from a trusted source, like Citibank or eBay. Click on a link in the email, and yodirected to a fake Web site, where you’re asked to reveal account numbers, passwordsand other private information… Then there’s ‘pharming,’ where hackers attack the servercomputers where legitimate Web sites are housed. Type in the address of the legitimatesite, and you are redirected to a look-alike.”35 This point is often made by Kim Cameron, Microsoft’s Identity and Access Architect. Hereminds industry colleagues that people are not stupid, but rather they have been givenpoor tools for interacting online.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies

33Industry specialists say that digital identitymanagement tools will allow onlineexchanges to be much more secureand convenient, as this technology willenable enhanced control over digitizedinformation relating to a person.36Consumers have to date not embracedthis technology because ithas not yet been presented in a formthey are willing to accept. Microsoftis still smarting from its past experiencetrying to provide such tools,37

and other technology companieshave taken note: People do not wanta single, powerful company to be atthe center of their trust relationshipsor to occupy a monopoly position inhandling their personal data.Technology developers38 are thereforenow focusing on user-centricapproaches to digital identity management.In this new paradigm, aperson will choose among diff erent“identity providers” to take care of hispersonal data, with his permissionthen required for that identity providerto pass his information to anotherperson or entity in a transaction;meanwhile, the new system will alsoverify the identity of that other partyto the transaction.How Digital IdentityManagement WorksThis user-centric identity model hastwo primary parts: one that handlesthe exchange of identity informationas it passes between endpoint

computers or devices, and the otherthat helps a user manage his identityinformation on his computer. For



relying party, as described above.The agent will be able to operate onall sorts of devices, be they desktopcomputers or cellular phones or othermobile devices. This agent will be thesole component of the digital identitysystem with which the user will need

to authenticate himself directly (e.g.,through a fi ngerprint scan).As the trusted intermediary, a person’sidentity agent will sit at the center ofthe user’s communication and haveaccess to all identity informationexchanged. It will unwrap a token andtranslate the claims from one system’slanguage into a format recognizableto another. To protect privacy insofaras possible, this trusted intermediarywill ideally keep to a minimum the

amount of information disclosed fora given transaction. In many cases,this may require that the informationin a given token be transformed intoan alternate token correspondingwith a specifi c request. For example,the intermediary will be able to takeinformation from a token vouchingthat a person was born on a specifi cdate (e.g., July 20, 1969) and translateit so that the new claim revealsnothing more than that the person isindeed over 21 years old.

Putting theory into practice, Microsoftis planning to roll out a user-friendlytoken exchange system with visualicons called “Cardspace” that willresemble cards that people currentlycarry in their wallets, such as a driver’slicense, a credit card, etc. While theThe Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies35plan is to introduce this system inthe new version of Windows, called“Windows Vista”,40 the digital identitysystem will also be available in upgradesfor Windows XP. Microsoft hasbeen on the private campaign trailto convince big e-commerce playerslike Amazon and eBay to accept thesenew services in exchange for moredirect access to Microsoft customers.Because so many people alreadyuse Windows XP, the spread of theseservices will not hinge on widespreadadoption of the newer Windows Vista.Given the fact that Windows XP runson hundreds of millions of machines

today, these digital identity managementtools have a strong probabilityof taking root.



Meanwhile, IBM and Novell in February2006 announced their intention tooff er programming code to allow forsimilar digital identity managementtools to be built using open-sourcesoftware. The project, named “Higgins”,will enable diff erent identity management

tools to interoperate.41 Ratherthan managing digital identities itself,Higgins overlays diff erent systemsin order that information might beexchanged among them at a user’srequest.42 One attractive prospectis portability in reputation systems,which would allow, for example, aperson to take the reputation he hasbuilt up in the eBay43 community andcarry it over into the world of SecondLife.44 The technical requirements for

such portability are just starting to beexplored.Ramifi cations and ConcernsThe new digital identity managementtools promise to cut today’sphishing and pharming and may alsoaddress spam problems. Since anidentity agent can help to minimizedata disclosed to a merchant or otherentity with which a person interacts,the technology may boost privacy asit minimizes the number of entitiesthat have access to an individual’s

profi le. Perhaps most signifi cantly,the system’s distributed architectureshould reduce vulnerability to attacksince theoretically data is not concentratedin one place.If the system can protect personaldata in this way, digital identitymanagement has many possible ben-40 Worldwide availability of Windows Vista is scheduled for early 2007.41 The Eclipse Foundation, an open-source community, manages Higgins.42 Interviews with John Clippinger, a senior fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet andSociety at Harvard Law School, Fall 2005.43 See http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/feedback.html describing the eBay reputationsystem (viewed November 8, 2006).44 See http://secondlife.com/whatis/ describing the 3-D virtual world of Second Life (viewNovember 8, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies36efi ts to society, including preventingmalicious conduct and making theInternet a better forum for commerce.From this vantage point, the technologypromotes privacy, security, andimproved living standards.So, too, tools enabling the exchange

of personal data based on an individual’spreferences may facilitatesocial interactions. Paul Trevithick,



Project Lead for Higgins, emphasizesthe benefi ts of a user-centered networkinglayer that “gives people morecontrol over their digital identitiesacross a wide variety of computermediatedcontexts (e.g., email, instantmessaging, e-commerce, shared

spaces, and enterprise directories),especially those involving social networks.”45 In this way, digital identitymanagement tools may serve as aboon to freedom of assembly.Looked at from another perspective,however, the existence of digitalidentity management systems couldpose signifi cant risks for privacy andsecurity. As noted, in the proposedarchitecture a person’s identity agentwill serve as the most trusted intermediary

in the new digital identitysystem; however, current technologyprovides no guaran tee that a person’sidentity agent will not collude withthe other parties to a transaction (i.e.identity providers and relying parties).In addition, it is quite conceivable thatthe market will not support the hostof identity providers that advocatesof systems speak of, but that insteadthere will be a natural concentrationin identity provisioning. Quite simply,users might fi nd it inconvenient or

expensive to separate their data anddesignate elements to diff erent identityproviders. Or, relying parties mightbe restrictive in recognizing identityproviders, with the result that a limitedset of identity providers woulddominate the market. Either way, asmall number of identity providerswould have control over a great dealof personal data. Moreover, givencurrent designs of the system, it istechnically possible for identity providersand relying parties to collude.In other words, it is unclear how theplayers in the identity managementinfrastructure will be accountable tousers and the Information Societygenerally.46 Of course, the market mayspur improved technologies whosearchitecture guarantees trustworthybehavior, and the law may well reinforcethese incentives.47To some, the primary infoethics concernis what happens if a big player45 Interview with Paul Trevithick, September 20, 2005.

46 Mary Rundle and Ben Laurie, “Identity Management as a Cybersecurity Case Study,”Berkman Center Publication Series, September 2005, p. 8.47 Microsoft took a strong stance advocating privacy legislation in 2006.



The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies37– e.g., a government or a megacorporation– usurps a distributed,user-centric identity system and appliesits own globally unique identifi er,violating all the user-centric principles

that industry developers have advertised.In other words, there arecurrently no innate technological protectionsregarding possible future usesof these tools. If the tools were usedthroughout the Information Societyin an abusive manner to discriminate,intimidate, and block communication,human rights and related infoethicsgoals would be in serious jeopardy.The magnitude of these eff ectsshould not be underestimated given

the revolution that digital identitymanagement may bring in machineto-machine interactions, or “webservices”. Dale Olds, a key Novellengineer in this area, has indicatedthat Higgins may seek to developan additional technology that wouldautomatically transfer informationfrom an individual’s given digitalidentity (or persona) when he visits aweb site.48 It may be here that digitalidentity management tools will havetheir strongest impact: By enabling

machines to exchange personal dataautomatically on people’s behalf, thetools will throw off one of the biggestimpediments to web services. Hence,the empowering of machines in thisway could ignite an explosion inmachine-to-machine interaction.Machine empowerment points toperhaps the biggest unknown andthe one with the greatest potentialimpact – concerning not what humansmay do with these tools, but ratherhow machines will treat humans withpersonal data so well organized. KimCameron, Microsoft’s chief Identityand Access Architect, underscoresthese apprehensions:The broader aspects of the waynetwork intelligence respondsto who we are is of much moreconcern to me when I thinkforward twenty years… Beyondthe abuse of power there areother equally chilling possiblefutures – involving the potential

relationship between humankind and machine intelligence.I realize people are not likely to



want to discuss this becauseit is too forward thinking, butthe two actually can mutuallyreinforce each other in trulyfrightening scenarios.4948 Robert Weisman, “Harvard, tech fi rms push data privacy: Goal is to let Net users contrthe personal,” Boston Globe, February 27, 2006.

49 E-mail exchanges with Kim Cameron, Fall 2005 (cited with permission).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies38BiometricsWhile digital identity management isexpanding the metadata vocabularyto allow automated exchanges ofperso nal data, its real-world counterpart,biometrics, is fostering theapplication of metadata to physicalspace. Since both deal with a person,there is a blending of the virtual and

real worlds through linguistic fi at asthe same basic metadata is used todescribe aspects of both.What Biometrics IsBiometrics is an emerging technologythat measures and analyzes uniquecharacteristics of individuals, includingboth physical and behavioral. Amongothers, the following characteristicsare often listed as biometrics:DNAFacial patternsFingerprints

GaitIris patternsRetina patternsScentSignatureTyping cadenceVoiceAlthough biometrics is known tohave existed in China as early as the14th century,50 it is considered anemerging technology because thecapture, measurement, and analysis ofbiometrics are increasingly automatedand in digital form. As such, biometricscan be combined with othertechnological advancements – forexample metadata (since biometricscan be categorized for processingand exchange by machines); digitalidentity management (since theyconcern control over personal data);and sensors (since measurements areoften captured by sensing devices).The primary driver of development inrecent years has been the desire for

security, both on the part of the privatesector (e.g., to restrict access to tradesecrets) and on the part of government



(e.g., to limit travel by criminals orsuspected dangerous persons). Manygovernments stepped up research anddevelopment in this area following theterrorist attacks in the United States onSeptember 11, 2001.How Biometrics Work

A person’s biometric is registeredin a system when one or more ofhis physical and behavioral characteristicsare captured by a device. Themeasurement is then processed by anumerical algorithm that in essenceabstracts it into a digital form. Theresult is then logged into a database.At this point the person may beconsidered “enrolled”, whether or not50 Wikipedia entry for “Biometrics” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics), viewedFebruary 7, 2006.

The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies39he is aware of it. Each subsequent attemptto have that person’s biometricsauthenticated by the system requiresthe biometric to be captured and digitizedanew. That digital representationis then compared against those in thedatabase to fi nd a match.Ramifi cations and ConcernsIn 1997 the International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) began developing“a global, harmonized blueprint

for the integration of biometric identification information into passportsand other Machine Readable TravelDocuments…”51 This blueprint wasadopted by ICAO members in 2003.With implementation requiring majoreff ort, a full programme is underway inICAO to accomplish this harmonization.ICAO’s 188 member countries arearguably obliged to conform to thisglobal requirement for electronictravel documents: After all, Article22 of the Chicago Convention chartercalls for signatories to “adopt allpracticable measures... to preventunnecessary delays to aircraft, crews,passengers and cargo, especially inthe administration of laws relatingto immigration, quarantine, customsand clearance.” ICAO has stated thatthe blueprint will help members “toimplement a worldwide, standardizedsystem of identity confi rmation.”52As mentioned above, the pivotal stepin the user-centric identity management

system involves the initialauthentication of the user to his electronicagent – with subsequent



claims transfers then based on thisverifi cation. It is conceivable thatICAO’s universal biometric standardsfor Machine Readable TravelDocuments would evolve into aglobal mechanism for governmentsanctionedproof of identity – and

at the same time serve in the initialauthentication. Such an internationallyrecognized digital identity wouldthen seem to constitute the ultimateguarantee that a person was who hesaid he was and that claims transfersbased on that identity were valid.It is easy to see why the internationalsystem might adopt such an approach.After all, a globally unique identifi erwould seem the ultimate backer fordigital identity management and so

would allow online transactions tothrive; it could also help ensure orderin the face of cyber attacks. So, too,it would provide a global methodfor enforcing other internationalcommitments to monitor individuals’activities for the sake of stabilityin taxation, fi nancial services,51 See ICAO’s web site at http://www.icao.int. For an additional overview of this organizaand a summary of this initiative, see http://www.netdialogue.org/initiatives/icaomrtd/.52 ICAO Press Release dated May 28, 2003.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies40

environmental protection, and more.53In short, a globally unique identifi ercould seem the answer for accordinga person offi cial digital existence in theInformation Society.For a system to ensure that each personhad one and only one governmentissuedidentity, it would need to havea central administration.54 It is foreseeablethat an international agencymight be tasked with administeringthis system. In light of the fact thatinternational bodies have not beenimmune from corruption, trusting asingle, global body with this criticallysensitive information could leave theInformation Society in terrible shape.Simply stated, international institutionsare not equipped with mechanisms toprevent the abuse of power.Moreover, a centrally administeredidentity system would be a primetarget for attacks. No institution is abletechnically to guarantee system security.A far less risky approach would be

to prevent centralization of this data.If the international system did embraceextensive use of biometrics or



another globally unique identifi er, themove could signal the eff ective end ofanonymity. It would become feasible tocompile a complete profi le of a person’sactivities – including where the personhas gone, what he has spent moneyon, with whom he has been in contact,

what he has read, etc.55This death to anonymity would meanwhilebe coupled with asymmetryin information: The individual’s everymove could be monitored, yet he maynot have any knowledge of this surveillance.Beyond privacy, such a state ofaff airs does not bode well for the exerciseof other fundamental freedomssuch as the right to associate or to seek,receive, and impart information – especiallyas the intimidation of surveillance

can serve as a very restrictive force.Finally, biometric techniques likefacial recognition are becoming moreaccurate over time. However, falsepositives in biometrics could implicatea person in a crime, raising the infoethicsquestion of what constitutes proofif a person is to be presumed innocentuntil proved guilty.53 For a discussion of these initiatives, see Mary Rundle and Ben Laurie, “Identity Manageas a Cybersecurity Case Study,” Berkman Center Publication Series, September 2005.54 Stephen T. Kent and Lynette I. Millett, Editors, “IDs – Not that Easy: Questions AboutNationwide Identity Systems,” Computer Science and Telecommunications Board:

Committee on Authentication Technologies and Their Privacy Implications, Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 2002, Chapter 2.55 Of course, such profi ling may be possible without biometrics or other globally uniqueidentifi ers. Data profi ling is a growing business and will be furthered even more by thetechnologies that follow.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies41Radio FrequencyIdentifi cationWhat RFID IsRadio frequency identifi cation (RFID)is a technology that enables dataexchange from a small, inexpensive,wireless device, called an RFID tag,that is equipped with a computerchip and antenna. An RFID devicecan simply transmit its unique identification number; it can also transmitadditional data about a specifi cobject (e.g., date of a product’s packaging,price, factory of origin, etc.)or person (e.g., name, health status,etc.). Although the technology hasbeen used since the 1980s, it hasbecome more widespread today due

to advances in networking, miniaturization,and computing.One major use of RFID technology



is in the area of product tracking.Wal-Mart and the U.S. Department ofDefense are known to be big driversfrom the demand side as they haverequired their largest contractors touse RFID tags.56 A main motivator issupply chain and inventory management.

When a pallet is loaded withproducts that each contain an RFIDtag, the entire load can be accountedfor as it passes a reader – for example,as it is transferred onto or off adelivery truck. In retail RFID tags areexpected to replace barcode labelsaltogether since the newer technologyallows item-specifi c labeling.57So, too, RFID technology is being appliedto transportation, in the name ofpromoting smooth travel and public

safety. Airline companies hope to useRFID to cut costs and increase reliabilityin baggage handling, with anestimated savings of US $700 millionper year.58 Demonstrating the marketabilityof RFID chips for the recallof faulty products, Michelin in 2003began testing chips in tires to allowautomobile manufacturers to comply56 As reported by Todd Spangler, “Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, says it will dounumber of stores using RFID to more than 1,000 by January 2007… bringing to more than600 the number of supplier companies using RFID technology in concert with Wal-Mart.(“Wal-Mart Plans to Add RFID to 500 More Stores,” Extreme RFID, September 12, 2006.) In

2003 the U.S. Department of Defense announced a policy requiring its suppliers to useRFID chips by 2005 (U.S. Department of Defense Press Release No. 775-03 of October 23,2003, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031023-0568.html).57 Although predicted to be some years out yet, RFID tags could eliminate the check-outline as customers might walk past a reader with their collection of purchases and havean account automatically charged when leaving a store (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rfi dviewed October 6, 2006).58 Andrew Price, RFID Project Manager for the International Air Transport Association (IATspeaking at RFID Journal’s Aerospace Summit (September 26-28, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies42more readily with U.S. requirementsfor tire tracking, and the industryhas since moved to standardize thispractice.59 Meanwhile, the automotiveindustry has decided as a groupinternationally to embed RFID chipsin vehicles for reading by roadsideequipment. This initiative followsgovernment initiatives to reducetraffi c congestion and accidentsand to support environmentalstandards.60 Many highway systemsoff er RFID enabled toll passes thatallow vehicles to speed through

electronic collection booths. Theseapplications are used in parts ofAustralia, Canada, Chile, France, the



Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, andthe United States. Similarly, publictransportation systems in HongKong, London, Moscow, New York,Paris, Perth, Taipei, and other citieshave incorporated RFID chips intopassenger passes.

RFID tags are also being used initems that people carry or wear inorder to track individuals or verifytheir identity. Several corporationshave begun embedding RFIDtags into employee uniforms oridentification badges, allowing anemployer to track the whereaboutsof an employee at all times or to restrictaccess to areas of buildings.61In 2005 Cisco began selling RFIDservers that work with RFID chips

embedded in uniforms to track employeewhereabouts.62 Similarly, forimmigration control, many countriesare incorporating RFID chipsinto passports to implement ICAO’srequirement for contactless, machine-readable travel documents.59 These tire-tracking requirements stem from the Transportation, Recall, Enhancement,Accountability and Documentation Act (TREAD Act) passed by the U.S. Congress in2000 in the wake of the Firestone tire problems encountered with Ford Explorers.For more information on RFID chips in tires, see http://www.rfi djournal.com/article/articleview/269/1/1/ and http://www.rfi djournal.com/article/articleview/2043/2/1/(viewed October 11, 2006).

60 Through its Dedicated Short Range Communications initiative, the internationalautomotive industry has agreed to a short- to medium-range wireless protocol designedespecially for automotive use. See http://www.standards.its.dot.gov/Documents/advisories/dsrc_advisory.htm for information from the U.S. Department of Transportation,and http://www.ictsb.org/ITSSG/Documents/Mandate_M270.pdf for an overview of aEuropean Commission mandate in the area of Road Transport Telematics (Mandate 270,published April 24, 1998 by Directorate-General III).61 This application of the technology dates back to 1989, when Olivetti Research introduceRoy Want’s Active Badge. Use of such badges did not appear practicable until the broaduptake of the Internet in industrialized societies.62 “Cisco slammed for RFID staff tracker,” Iain Thomson, Vnunet.com, May 4, 2005 (http://wvnunet.com/vnunet/news/2127277/cisco-slammed-rfi d-staff -tracker, viewed October 3,2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies43(See the discussion above in the casestudy on Biometrics.)63In the public health context, RFIDchips were used in badges in twoSingaporean hospitals64 in 2003 torecord who had been in contactwith whom, as a preventive measureagainst the spread of SevereAcute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).Information was stored for 21 days

(the incubation period for SARS being10 days) and then deleted to protectconfi dentiality.65



RFID chips are also being implantedin people. These devices currently arethe size of a grain of rice and are saidto last 20 years.66 In the area of health,people may receive chip implants tostore their medical data so that it iseasily accessible and associable with

them, particularly if they are unableto communicate.67 Another use ofhuman implants is in the employmentcontext, where a few employershave used implants in employees tocontrol access to ultra high-securityareas. In 2004, the Mexican AttorneyGeneral’s offi ce implanted a numberof its staff with an RFID chip to controlsuch access and to serve as a trackingdevice in case they were kidnapped.68Perhaps testing early social acceptance

of chip implants in humansfor everyday uses, a nightclub hasoff ered these devices to their VIPclients in Barcelona and Rotterdamfor easy identifi cation and drink payment.69 Human-implantable chipsare also being marketed as tools forimmigration control, with the CEOof one leading company touting, “It’sreally no diff erent than a tamperproofpassport you can carry all the time,”and adding, “[a]s concerns mount63 Malaysia issued the fi rst RFID enabled passports in 1998 (http://www.wikipedia.org vie

October 6, 2006). At the June 2005 Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, the RFIDtechnology planned for use by the U.S. Department of State was shown to be hackable.Shortly thereafter the agency put plans for RFID passports on hold; after apparentlybolstering encryption, in March 2006 the State Department issued its fi rst batch of theseRFID travel documents in a pilot project. See Marc Perton, “US Issues First RFID PassportsEngadget, http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/13/us-issues-fi rst-rfi d-passports/.64 Alexandra Hospital and the National University Hospital participated in the pilot proje65 “Singapore Fights SARS with RFID,” RFID Journal, June 4, 2003, available at http://www.rfi djournal.com/article/articleview/446/1/1/ (viewed October 23, 2006).66 “I’ve got you under my skin,” The Guardian, Technology section, June 10, 2004, availablhttp://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1234827,00.html (viewed October11, 2006).67 The VeriChip Corporation markets its VeriMed chip implants as allowing the identifi catof patients and health records. See http://www.verimedinfo.com/content/intro/patients(viewed October 3, 2006).68 See, e.g., http://www.verichipcorp.com/images/GSN_Mar06.pdf.69 See the “VIP” section of the web site of the Baha Beach Club in Barcelona, http://www.bajabeach.es/ (viewed October 11, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies44about falsifi ed documents, VeriChiptechnology ensures security andprivacy for the individual as well asincreased security at our borders...”70RFID implants are incorporating other

technologies as well. For example,RFIDs equipped with bio-thermalsensors can register temperatures



among animal populations. Thistechnology has been put forward as away to help monitor and combat thespread of the H5N1 avian fl u virus.71Similarly, in a joint pilot programme,the Digital Angel Corporation72 andthe Brazilian Agriculture Research

Corporation (Embrapa) have beenimplanting bio-thermal RFID chips incattle so as to curb the spread of Hoofand Mouth Disease. According tothe company’s press release, “Whenscanned with an RFID scanner andused in conjunction with a databaseprogram, the bio-thermal chip can,in addition to sensing temperature,provide immediate access to specifi cinformation such as the identity ofthe animal, its age, medical history,

where it has been, and its contactswith other cattle.”73In addition, motion-sensing RFIDchips are being developed to monitoractivity levels and routines ofthe elderly and people with chronicdiseases. Data logs of people’s movementswill be used to profi le people’shabits, with alarms going off if behaviorchanges (e.g., if a person stopseating, taking medicine, or gettingout of bed).74For the visually impaired, a company

called En-Vision America has developedsmart-label RFIDs that workwith readers to off er speech synthesistechnology. The chip is programmedwith the information written on aproduct’s label, and this informationis then spoken out in audible form70 “VeriChip Highlights Role Implanted Chip May Play in a Government Immigration andGuest Worker Program,” U.S. Newswire, June 9, 2006, http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67264 (viewed June 16, 2006).71 See, e.g., Ephraim Schwartz, “RFID tags for chickens? Digital Angel says tracking tempeof poultry could be early warning system for avian fl u,” InfoWorld, December 5, 2005(viewed at http://ww6.infoworld.com/products/print_friendly.jsp?link=/article/05/12/05/HNchickenfl u_1.html October 11, 2006).72 Digital Angel Corporation is majority-owned by Applied Digital Inc., which is also theparent company of VeriChip Corporation. Another of its subsidiaries, Signature Industries,is a leading developer and manufacturer of search-and-rescue GPS beacon equipment(trade name SARBE), used by diff erent countries’ militaries.73 See http://www.digitalangelcorp.com/about_pressreleases.asp?RELEASE_ID=217 for theDigital Angel Corporation’s Press Release of April 25, 2006 announcing an agreement withthe Brazilian government.74 Pacifi c Health Summit’s Health and Information Technology and Policy Briefi ng Book,Health Information Technology and Policy Workgroup, June 2006, page 6.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies45

when the reader and RFID label arecoupled. These smart labels are beingmarketed in the prescription drug



context, with pharmacies attachingthem to drug packages so that apatient can use a reader to hear whatis printed there: for example, thepatient’s name; the type of drug; therecommended dosage; warnings;general instructions; the prescription

number; and the doctor’s contactinformation.75These applications may give theimpression that RFID technology isa niche market; however, the technologyhas already become quiteprevalent. As of early 2006, severalhundred million RFID tags had alreadybeen used in food packaging,and more than 70 million tags had reportedlybeen applied to livestock.76Recent bulk pricings of passive RFID

tags have been at US$.07. Meanwhile,some companies are developing newforms that can be printed directly intopaper, antennae and all.77 With extensiveRFID uses already underway inobjects, animals, and humans, oneexpert has predicted that by 2010,more than 500 billion RFID tags willbe put in circulation annually.78How RFID WorksAn RFID system usually has a small“tag” that has been assigned a uniqueelectronic number and sometimes

can store additional information. Thetag is equipped with a transponder aswell as a digital memory chip. The tagworks in conjunction with a separate“interrogator” antenna or reader thathas a transceiver and decoder; thereader emits a signal, and this signalactivates the RFID tag so that it cansend that device data that is encodedin the tag’s integrated circuit (siliconchip). As opposed to barcodes that75 See http://www.envisionamerica.com/scriptalk.htm (viewed October 3, 2006).76 “Food and Livestock RFID - Where, Why, What Next?” IDTechEx, February 10, 2006 (viewedOctober 11, 2006 at http://www.idtechex.com/products/en/articles/00000434.asp).77 Companies such as PolyIC and Philips are developing tags made with polymersemiconductors, which, if commercialized, are expected to be printable and muchcheaper than tags made with silicon. See “Philips Demos Polymer HF Tags,” Mary CatherineO’Connor, RFID Journal, February 7, 2006, available at http://www.rfi djournal.com/articlearticleprint/2139/-1/1 (viewed October 11, 2006).78 Loring Wirbel, “RFID tags ubiquitous by 2010, MIT prof predicts,” My-ESM, September 15,2004. There had been concerns that licensing and intellectual property disputes couldslow deployment of RFID technology. A company called Intermec holds various patents onRFID, while the industry association EPCglobal has developed the “UHF Class 1 Generation2” standard (Gen 2). It has been decided that Gen 2 does not infringe on Intermec patents,but royalties may need to be paid to Intermec depending how the tag is read. See Mark

Roberti, “EPCglobal Ratifi es Gen 2 Standard,” RFID Journal, December 16, 2004, availablehttp://www.rfi djournal.com/article/articleview/1293/1/1/ (viewed October 11, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies



46are commonly used on productstoday, RFID tags do not require thatthe reader be in direct “line of sight.”As suggested above, the tag can beapplied as a label, or it can be embedded.79

RFID tags fall into three categories:passive, semi-passive, or active.Passive tags contain no internalpower supply; the minute electricalcurrent induced in the antenna bythe incoming radio frequency signalprovides just enough power for theintegrated circuit in the tag to powerup and transmit a response. In otherwords, the antenna both gatherspower from the incoming signaland transmits its own signal back.

Passive RFID tags can be so small asto be almost invisible. For example,as of the spring of 2006, the smallestdevices along this line measured 0.15mm × 0.15 mm (without antennae)and were thinner than a sheet ofpaper; despite their lack of internalpower, they can nevertheless still beread by a reader a few meters away.A semi-passive tag, on the other hand,does contain a small battery, obviatingthe need for the antenna to collectpower from the incoming signal.80 A

semi-passive tag activates only when itdetects a signal from an interrogator.Active RFID tags serve as beacons.With their own power supply, theyhave a longer range (up to tens ofmeters) and larger memories thanpassive tags, plus they can storeadditional information sent by thetransceiver. At present, the smallestactive tags have a battery life of upto 10 years, cost a few dollars, andare approximately the size of a smallcoin.81 (Of course, in 10 years the sizeof today’s tag and antenna will likelyseem monstrous.)Ramifi cations and ConcernsWhile RFIDs themselves may be neutral,their wide-scale rollout is sure tohave broad infoethics consequences.Similar to digital identity managementand biometrics, RFID technologypresents particularly pressing issuesfor privacy.These issues emerge even if thetechnology is deployed only in connection

with consumer goods. Forexample, if the bulk of a person’spurchases have RFIDs attached to



them, and if the person’s identity isascertainable (e.g., through his useof a credit card to buy the items),the information can be linked. Vastamounts of data accumulate over79 See generally http://www.glandi.com/epackaging.htm.80 Id.

81 Id.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies47time, allowing a detailed profi le ofthat person’s spending patterns. Addthis compilation to the data on wherea person travels in his RFID-taggedcar, and the profi le becomes highlysophisticated.Katherine Albrecht, director of theconsumer privacy group ConsumersAgainst Supermarket Privacy Invasion

and Numbering (CASPIAN), warnsthat RFID tags on consumer productscould emit data even after purchase,allowing each tag to act as a potentialbeacon for trackers.82As noted above, there are alreadydirect associations of RFID tags withspecifi c human beings. A currentconcern with RFIDs in the employmentcontext is whether companiesappropriately inform their staff ofhow data from RFIDs in chip-embeddedbadges is collected, used,

and retained. While companies usuallysay they require these tags forthe purpose of controlling accessto buildings, a recent study by theRAND Corporation suggests thatU.S. companies are in fact using RFIDdata for additional purposes. For example,RFID data is used to accountfor employee whereabouts duringevacuations, to investigate thefts,and to enforce employee-conductrules (such as break times).83Of the companies studied, not asingle one had informed its employeesabout these additionalapplications, leaving them to assumethe RFID chips were used solely forcontrolling locks. Generally speaking,explicit written policies did not exist,and none of the companies had alimited data retention policy; rather,they all held the records indefi nitely.Noting that fair information practiceswould give employees the right toinspect and correct records about

their activities, the study insightfullycautions that, even if acknowledged,this right may lose its eff ectiveness



because it would be diffi cult for anemployee to reconstruct a givenday’s activities after time had elapsed.The study draws an important conclusion:As technologies collect andanalyze data on individuals’ behaviorwith increasing sophistication, elements

of fair information practicesmay need to be rethought.84Refl ecting the European Union’sgreater attention to the protectionof personal data, governments in EU82 Lecture by Katherine Albrecht at Harvard University, April 7, 2006. See http://www.noca83 Edward Balkovich, Tora K. Bikson, and Gordon Bitko, “9 to 5: Do You Know If Your BossKnows Where You Are? Case Studies of Radio Frequency Identifi cation Usage in theWorkplace,” TR-197-RC, 2005, 36 pp. The study compares and contrasts practices of sixprivate-sector companies with over 1,500 employees.84 Id.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies

48member states have given companiesmore guidance on RFID usage. In theUnited Kingdom, for example, theInformation Commissioner’s Offi cehas published best practices in itsEmployment Practices Code, callingon companies to avoid “oppressive ordemeaning” forms of employee monitoring.Similarly, France’s Commissionnationale de l’informatique et deslibertés (CNIL) has advised companiesto brief employees fully on any use

made of data from RFID-enabledidentifi cation badges. This body alsorecommends that individual workersbe allowed to access their datarecords.85Employers argue that security andpublic safety justify the use of RFIDtags. However, in addition to sacrifi cingemployees’ privacy and personalautonomy, the tags could enable employersto intimidate employees andkeep them from exercising their legalrights – for example the right to collectiveaction in trade unions. Surfacingthese tensions, the British generalunion GMB argued in 2006 that thepractice of some retail distributioncenters of requiring employees towear RFID tags was dehumanizing.Reacting against the surveillance ofemployees as they take breaks, UnionNetwork International, an internationalfederation of service sectorunions based in Geneva, Switzerland,has organized a campaign to contest

this use of RFIDs.86As for RFID use to prevent the spreadof disease, it is imaginable that the



type of system used in Singaporeduring the 2003 SARS crisis couldbe deployed on a wide scale inthe event of a human pandemic(such as an outbreak triggered bya mutation in avian fl u). To monitorpossible contamination, authorities

could use RFID chips in identifi cationcards, in combination with RFIDreaders located at the entrances tobuildings.87 Even if such measureswere embraced for public healthadvantages, protections for people’sprivacy and freedom of associationwould beg for serious attention giventhe enormous surveillance potentialbrought on by this technology.RFID identifi ers for people couldbe required by law; they could

also, however, become a practicalnecessity for a person to participatein society even if they were not officially required – similar to the waythat it has become diffi cult for adultsin industrialized societies to makemany types of purchases withouta credit card. If the market required85 Andrew Bibby, “Invasion of the Privacy Snatchers,” Financial Times, January 8, 2006.86 Id.87 For a brief account of new building-code plans in the United States, see the case studythe Geospatial Web and Location-Based Services, below.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies

49a person to have an RFID identifi erto participate in commerce but thiscondition were not mandated bygovernment, it would be diffi cult fora person to claim that the state wasinfringing on his rights by requiringhim to participate in such a system– unless the person argued that thegovernment, in allowing the marketto establish such a requirement, hadabdicated its responsibility to protecthis autonomy.It is imaginable such a de facto orde jure requirement could extendto human implants, and it is unclearwhether people would have the rightto refuse such measures.88 For example,in the same way that bio-thermalRFID chips are used to identify cattleexposed to infectious diseases, thesechips could be used in humans toquarantine people so as to limit thespread of pathogens. While somepeople might object to subjecting

their bodies to such treatment (e.g.,on account of religious beliefs), individuals’convictions may be required



to give way to the health interests ofthe greater public.Some commentators point to thenational security interests in supportinginfrastructure for RFID. As DésiréeMilošević puts it, governments arestarting to view this technology as a

geo-political necessity, igniting a sortof “surveillance race”.For now, however, there are veryimmediate concerns regarding vulnerabilitiesin RFID chips. A recentstudy on deployment in creditcards has shown that cardholderinformation can be gleaned by small,homemade readers assembled fromcomputer and radio componentsthat are easy to obtain. Because suchdevices can read chips even through

a wallet or clothing, the concern isthat someone could skim people’s informationsimply by passing througha crowded area with a reader.Although the major credit-card issuerscontest that most RFID-enabledcards have strong encryption, allthe cards examined in the study hadbeen issued recently, yet none wasfound to be secure.8988 The U.S. state of Wisconsin in the spring of 2006 was among the fi rst states in the UnStates to pass legislation making it illegal to require an individual to have a microchipimplant. “Wisconsin Bans Forced Human Chipping,” Free Market News Network, June 1,

2006. Many other states have since followed suit.89 Thomas S. Heydt-Benjamin, Daniel V. Bailey, Kevin Fu1, Ari Juels, and Tom O’Hare,“Vulnerabilities in First-Generation RFID-enabled Credit Cards,” University of Massachusetin collaboration with RSA Labs, October 2006. The paper is the fi rst published under a neconsortium involving industry and academic researchers to study RFID. Research is fi nanceby the National Science Foundation in the United States. The paper is available at http://cs.umass.edu/%7Ekevinfu/papers/RFID-CC-manuscript.pdf (viewed October 23, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies50Similarly, RFIDs used in humanimplants have also been criticizedas insecure. In July 2006 hackersdemonstrated that they could “clone”a VeriChip implant and attribute thatsame identifying information to adiff erent device.90These concerns aside, broad-scaleRFID deployment could supportnumerous infoethics goals. By revolutionizingthe supply chain andbringing great economic effi cienciesthat raise the standard of living,RFID technology arguably contributesto the exercise of life, liberty andsecurity. RFID-based identifi cation

systems, if secure, reduce the need forother methods of security, increasingaccess to transportation and public



resources. Implanted RFID tags enablebetter medical treatment by ensuringimmediate access to accurate healthrecords. The list of benefi ts is long.While there are clear infoethics tradeoffs with this technology, there isnonetheless marked demand for

it on the part of wholesalers andretailers who can gauge inventoriesquickly, and there will also be demandeventually by everyday buyers whowill be able to avoid check-outlines by passing through a scanner.Governments are adding their ownmandates and incentives for use ofthe technology in public services. Withserious pressures driving companiesand local governments to adopt thetechnology, and little incentive for

them not to do so, it appears that RFIDhas an almost guaranteed place in theInformation Society in the near term.Thus, in some ways, RFID representsa microcosm of the possibilities andthreats of ICTs. If carefully deployedand regulated, RFIDs present an opportunitydramatically to improvemany facets of life; if used without adequatesafeguards for security, privacyand other liberties, they threaten tobring nightmarish consequences.Sensors

What Sensors AreA sensor is a device that detects thepresence of a biological or chemicalentity or a physical stimulus and pro-90 The hackers, Annalee Newitz and Jonathan Westhues, demonstrated these vulnerabilitiesat the HOPE Number Six conference in New York City; the VeriChip Corporation said itneeded to review the evidence but noted that hacking into an RFID chip is diffi cult. SeeDonald Melanson, “VeriChip’s human-implatable RFID chips clonable, sez hackers,” postedto Engadget on July 24, 2006 (available at http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/24/verichips-human-implatable-rfi d-chips-clonable-sez-hackers/, viewed October 24, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies51duces a signal to give a measurementof that quality.Sensors are most commonly categorizedbased on the type ofphenomenon that they measure– for example, acceleration, acoustics,displacement, fl ow, gas, humidity, inclination,magnetism, light, oxygen,position, pH, pressure, proximity,rotation, and temperature.91How Sensors WorkSensors have two basic parts – a sensingelement and a transducer. Simply

stated, the sensing part interacts withthe surroundings and generates a response.The transducer then converts



that response into a quantifi able termthat can be interpreted.92Sensors can be deployed remotely,allowing information about the environmentat a specifi c location tobe determined by a sensor locatedat a distance from that location (e.g.,

from an aircraft, spacecraft, satellite,or ship).93 Remote sensing generallyrelies on radiation to measure the environment.Such sensors may measurea fairly broad range of phenomena,including heat, light (visual imaging)and sound.Sensors may also be placed “in situ,”or on site, in areas where measurementsare desired. Although manysuch sensors provide measurementsonly to persons present at the site,

a sensor can also relay informationthrough an information network. Insuch an arrangement an individualsensor is sometimes referred to as a“pod,” with each pod having certaincomponents, including:1. A sensor suite that contains thesensing element and transducer;2. A microcontroller that containsthe system’s protocols/communicationstandards, thatcommunicates with the attachedsensor suite, and that

performs data analysis asneeded;3. A radio linking the pod to itslocal neighborhood or network;4. A power system that today oftencomes in the form of a batterypack with solar panels, with acurrent life span of several years;and5. Packaging that usually must belightweight, durable, cheap,easily mountable, and sealed91 Web Sensor Portal, http://www.sensorsportal.com/HTML/Sensor.htm, viewed November7, 2006.92 Sensor Technology Exchange, http://www.sentix.org/info.htm, viewed November 7, 2006.93 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensor (viewed November 7, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies52against weather, elements, andanimals.94Increasingly, these sensors are beingproduced as microelectromechanicalsystems, or MEMS. MEMS sensorsare able to amplify the output signalgenerated by the sensor, to adjust the

sensor reading for conditions such astemperature, and to perform somecalculations based on the sensor



readings. (So, for example, such asensor might monitor a perishableproduct through a supply chain toensure appropriate temperature.)A recent article addresses ways toreduce the size of wireless MEMS tothe micrometer level – approximately

the size of a grain of sand.95 (Thesedevices are sometimes referred toas “motes” or “smartdust”.) The U.S.Department of Defense is reportedlyfunding research and developmentalong this line.At the opposite extreme, large satellitesin space are using sensors toprovide web content through theform of images, which can then becombined with other web serviceslike driving directions to allow new,

useful creations in the form of “mashups”. 96Ramifi cations andConcernsWhile sensors themselves may beneutral, the service supplied and thedata gathered may give rise to concern.For example, the same type ofsensors used to monitor a forest fi recould be employed surreptitiouslyon the opposite side of a wall tosurmise a person’s activities basedon body heat.97

Even data obtained for ostensiblybenevolent purposes may proveharmful if used in a way that violateshuman rights. This would be thecase, say, if sensors were used todetect the presence of infectious diseases,but the data were then usedto establish a quarantine area thatdiscriminated against a segment ofthe population.So, too, the data collection and itsgeneral purpose may be acceptable94 Kevin A. Delin, Shannon P. Jackson, David W. Johnson, Scott C. Burleigh, Richard R.Woodrow, J. Michael McAuley, James M. Dohm, Felipe Ip, Ty P.A. Ferré, Dale F. Rucker,and Victor R. Baker, “Environmental Studies with the Sensor Web: Principles and Practice,”Sensors 2005, Volume 5, 103-117, p. 106.95 Michael J. Sailor and Jamie R. Link, “Smart dust: nanostructured devices in a grain ofChemical Communications, vol. 11, p. 1375, 2005.96 See infra case study on Location-Based Services.97 The Supreme Court of the United States has barred law enforcement offi cials from usingthis form of technology, see Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), but there is no gbar to its use by other parties.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies53to the public, but downstream uses

to which the data is put may causealarm. For instance, satellite imagesmade available online by companies



like Google have caused consternationamong governments – notbecause of what Google itself isdoing or what the images represent,but rather because of the dangerposed by the accessibility of sensitiveinformation to potential enemies.98

To get a handle on these tensions sothat they may be considered moregenerally, it is useful to considersensors in the light of infoethicsgoals. Sensors may be viewed ascontributing to the human right tolife, liberty and security. For example,many sensors serve as life-savingdevices, such as those used to detectthe presence of harmful chemicalsin water or to track the progressof a major storm. In anticipation

of the spread of the avian fl u virus,STMicroelectronics, Europe’s secondlargestchipmaker, and VeredusLaboratories of Singapore have beendeveloping a laboratory chip thatcan analyze a minute blood sampleto diagnose the virus in one hour.Instead of sending samples to labsfor a several-day examination, thechip will allow quick displays onlaptops deployed in the fi eld. Eachdisposable chip will cost in the “tensof dollars”, according to a Financial

Times article.99Sensors also help to optimize theproduction and distribution of food,energy, and other essential componentsof life in industrialized societies.As such, they may be viewed as contributingto a higher standard of livingand thus to life, liberty and security.In terms of human rights, one ofthe most glaring issues is that ofprivacy. Simply put, information thata person has traditionally assumed tobe in his private domain may now beobservable by sensors, with him possiblyhaving no idea of the sensors’existence or presence. Data gatheredabout him may be personallyidentifi able, but it is unlikely that hehas eff ective notice or choice aboutthis collection, or that he himself hasaccess to it or a can be assured as toits security.Of course, sensors can also helpenforce privacy, for example bydetecting intrusions.

If sensor data is used in a courtproceeding, a person may be at asignifi cant disadvantage in trying to



disprove its reliability as evidence.98 See, e.g., Katie Hafner and Saritha Rai, “Governments Tremble at Google’s Bird’s-Eye ViNew York Times, December 20, 2005.99 Maija Palmer, “STMicro, Veredus plan quick-test bird-fl u chip,” Financial Times, Janua2006.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies54

Does this weaken the right of a personto be presumed innocent until provedguilty?Sensors also pose infoethics questionsrelating to the public domain andaccess to information. There are ambiguitiesregarding how the benefi ts ofsensor data will be shared – specifi cally,whether exclusive rights to sensor dataabout public spaces exist, or whether allsuch data is part of the public domainand available to everyone.

A standard interface for sensor datawould promote the accessibility ofdata. Information might be accessedeither from a central repository storingthe data or directly from the sensoritself if the sensor were connectedto an information network. As notedby David Clark,100 a leading architectof the Internet since the mid-1970s,“The interesting policy question is:‘Will there be an open infrastructurefor sensors?’.”101While law is often viewed as the way

to address such questions, scientiststend to be wary of regulation becauseit quickly can become outdated andconstrain technological advances.By way of example, environmentalmonitoring is generally considerednecessary to protect the public fromtoxic contaminants and pathogensthat might be released into the air,soil, or water of an area. Sensor technologyenables cheap monitoring,avoiding the high costs of sendinga team out to collect samples, andpreventing additional expenses thatmight accrue if samples are compromisedduring transport, storage, andoff -site analysis. Nonetheless, manyregulations still require manual collectionof samples for off -site analysis.102Hence, the regulation of sensors, orany other form of technology, requireslegislation and administrativeprocedures that are fl exible enoughto evolve along with the technologythat they propose to regulate.

Despite the diffi culties, policymakersand technologists must confront theproblems that sensor technology is



likely to present and take steps nowto create a climate that is conduciveto ethical uses.100 Clark served as the Internet’s Chief Protocol Architect from 1981-1989; he currently cthe Computer Sciences and Telecommunications Board of the (U.S.) National ResearchCouncil and is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artifi cialIntelligence Laboratory.

101 Interview with David Clark at MIT, November 11, 2005.102 For the foreseeable future, the environmental fi eld instrument market is expected toby an average of 7% annually – a fi gure that would be much higher if law and culture werefaster to embrace technological change. Cliff ord K. Ho, Alex Robinson, David R. Miller anMary J. Davis, “Overview of Sensors and Needs for Environmental Monitoring,” Sensors,2005, Volume 5, 4-37, p. 5 and 7.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies55The Geospatial Weband Location-BasedServicesWhat the Geospatial Web Is

Whereas sensors measure the realworld and turn it into data that canbe read by machines, the geospatialweb inverts this process, taking digitaldata and applying it to locationsin the real world. By merging datafrom various sources, geospatial webapplications can, for instance, showa map of the various restaurants ina given city, complete with contactinformation and reviews.What Location-BasedServices Are

A location-based service (LBS) takesthis concept one step further. Ratherthan providing information about arequested geographic location, a LBSautomatically determines the user’slocation and provides informationbased on those bearings. To extendthe application above, a LBS user canbe informed of all restaurants withina given distance of his present location,as well as directions to thoserestaurants from the user’s currentlocation.103More signifi cantly, LBS can automaticallytrack the location of a person andprovide this information to others.This tracking allows such services asDodgeball.com, which alerts peoplewhen friends or acquaintances arenearby. It can also permit emergencyassistance to be summoned to thelocation of a car accident withoutany action by the driver whatsoever.Some parents are providing LBS cellphones to their children so that

the children’s whereabouts can betracked. Applications are only justbeginning to be conceived.



How the Geospatial Weband Location-BasedServices WorkThe concept behind the geospatialweb is quite simple: Just indicatethe geographical location that correspondsto a given piece of (virtual)

data, and then provide a mechanismfor combining real-world mapsand that data. To show a map ofrestaurants in a city, for instance, the103 The OnStar system, for instance, provides directions to drivers by determining thelocation of the vehicle and combining that information with street maps and the driver’sdestination – the driver need not know his own location to take advantage of the service.See http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/index.jsp (visited March 15, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies56geospatial web need only collectthe addresses of various restaurants

and combine those with a mappingprogramme that places each onto astreet map or some other representationof the geographic area.LBS works by ascertaining the locationof a specifi c person or device. Atthe simplest level, the person merelyreports his location to the service.Alternatively, a person’s location canalso be calculated automatically. In thecase of a mobile phone, for instance, aperson’s location may be determinedby detecting the closest cellular

towers to the phone and “triangulating”the phone’s location based on itsdistance from each of these towers.The accuracy, and even availability, ofthis method of determining a user’slocation may vary with the density ofcellular towers in the area. A satellitebasedpositioning system such asGlobal Positioning System (GPS)104can provide an alternative methodof determining the location of a userwithout the constraint of nearbycellular towers. (Indeed, many, if notmost, new cell phones include GPSreceivers.) Another recent phenomenonis the linking of mobile phonesto nearby Wi-Fi hubs, giving a readingthat can indicate, e.g., where a personis in a building.Plans are in the midst for buildingcodes to require the use of RFIDs andsensors for LBS. As described on theweb site of the U.S. National Instituteof Standards and Technology (NIST):The RFID-Assisted Localization

and Communication for FirstResponders project will determinethe feasibility of using



RFID-assisted localization incombination with an ad-hocwireless communication networkto provide reliable trackingof fi rst responders in stressedindoor RF environments, whereGPS-based localization and links

to external communication systemsare known to be unreliable.The research will also considerthe means and potential forembedding critical building/occupantinformation in specifi con-site RFID tags to enhance thesafety and effi ciency of the fi rstresponders’ mission as well as104 According to the Wikipedia entry for GPS viewed March 15, 2006, “United StatesDepartment of Defense developed the system … and the satellite constellation is managedby the 50th Space Wing at Schriever Air Force Base… GPS is available for free use in civil

applications as a public good.” Meanwhile, “Russia operates an independent systemcalled GLONASS (global navigation system), although with only twelve active satellitesas of 2004, the system is of limited usefulness. There are plans to restore GLONASS to fuloperation by 2008. The European Union is developing Galileo as an alternative to GPS,planned to be in operation by 2010. China and France are also developing other satellitenavigation systems.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies57to minimize dependence uponcommunication with externalbuilding databases.105The project description in the studynotes the connection among technologies:

“The system… is intendedto leverage advances in ubiquitousRFID tag technology, in combinationwith recent advances in miniaturizedinertial sensors, to develop a low-costtracking system…”106Other LBS uses may be found in RFIDchips for human implantation. Whilethe VeriChip CEO stresses that thechips he is advocating for immigrationpurposes will be passive, thecompany web site indicates that theyalso have human-implantable chipsthat can serve as beacons.107Ramifi cations and ConcernsIn associating information with aspecifi c geographic location, thesetechnologies can enable a person toexercise various rights. For example,they allow a person readily to identifyand locate persons in his social networkand provide opportunities forincreased social interaction.108 In sodoing, they can be viewed as helpinga person to exercise his right to associate.

This right can serve to supportdemocracy and freedom generally ascitizens can assemble to petition for a



government to honor their rights.The geospatial web and LBS can alsobe viewed as helping to protect thehealth and safety of individuals sincethe availability of emergency servicesin many cases depends on the abilityto determine a person’s location.

In this sense, the technology allowspeople to enjoy more fully the rightto life, liberty and security of person.Of course, there are potential downsidesto the use of the technology.From a privacy perspective, peoplemay be concerned that their locationsare being observed. In the caseof a repressed minority, the trackingof location could result in discriminationas the knowledge could leadto people’s harassment. And just as

location-aware services could help agroup gather, they could also be usedto impede association or assembly,depending on who had access tothe data and what kind of forces they105 National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), Advanced Network TechnologiesDivision, http://www.antd.nist.gov/wctg/RFID/RFIDassist.htm, updated on 03/03/06 andviewed on 14 March 2006.106 Leonard Miller, “Indoor Navigation for First Responders: A Feasibility Study,” NationaInstitute for Standards and Technology, February 10, 2006, p. 7.107 See VeriChip web site at http://www.verichipcorp.com/ (viewed June 22, 2006).108 See, e.g., www.Dodgeball.com (a social networking LBS where users send a text messageon a cell phone to indicate their current location).

The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies58could exert to stop a gathering. Eventhe threat of location surveillancecould have a chilling eff ect and stoppeople from assembling.These tensions point to one overridingconcern: Who should haveknowledge of a person’s whereabouts?As currently designed, LBSallows the service provider to ascertainthe location of a person and toshare that information; it does notfollow, however, that the service providershould have the capability orpermission to determine a person’slocation at any given time, or to useor share that data as it sees fi t.Similar to protections in digital identitymanagement, one approach tothis potential privacy hazard could beto utilize trusted intermediaries thatwould provide the minimum necessaryinformation about a person’slocation, in a way that would not be

linkable to other information. So, forexample, software might promptan individual to choose when and



to whom his location is revealed.Still, a person might not have theability to choose when a LBS combineswith sensors and biometrics(e.g., facial recognition technology)to identify people’s whereabouts.Again, machines may need to be

programmed to treat personal datawith extra care.As with other emerging technologies,choices in law and computer code willdetermine who has ownership andcontrol over this information. Legaland technological safeguards shouldtherefore be put in place to ensure thatlocation information associated witha person is used in a manner that apolity (including its minorities) deemsacceptable. Such a combined solution

would help the Information Society toreap the benefi ts of these tools withoutincurring heavy infoethics costs.Mesh NetworkingIn addition to the content that isalready on the Internet, there will bea vast amount of data generated byRFID, sensors, and LBS, especially oncestandards enable interoperability. Thisgreat quantity will require a more extensivecommunication network to tiethe technologies together. Mesh networkingappears to be an ideal tool to

begin to create this network.What Mesh Networking IsIn mesh networking, network-enableddevices (e.g., computers or mobilephones) establish a peer-to-peerThe Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies59communication network spontaneously.This connectivity is touted asself-confi guring, self-healing, scalable,strong, and inexpensive.109How Mesh NetworkingWorksMesh networking works by devices’sensing each other’s presence andnegotiating with each other toset up a network for transmittingcommunication. Instead of passingthrough centrally-controlled hubs,data exchanged via mesh networkstravel in an ad hoc, “multi-hop” path,with each point or “node” along theway functioning as a router to relaymessages to other nearby nodes. Aparticipating node can be fi xed or

mobile, wired or wireless.The primary advantage of a meshnetwork is its ad hoc nature: a mesh



network can form between nodeswith no underlying infrastructure,relying solely on the ability of individualnodes to connect to eachother. So, for example, a mesh networkwould allow a rescue team onthe scene of a toxic spill to form their

own network to share information.Similarly, a mesh network using radioor other wireless communicationtechnology could be deployed interrain where a wired infrastructuredoes not exist, due to terrain or otherconstraints. If the network neededInternet connectivity, this link couldbe achieved through just one nodewith a connection – although thegreater the number of nodes with aconnection, the greater the reliability

and speed of transmission. Meshnetworking could thus allow poorregions to share a limited numberof Internet connections. To extendto remote areas, the network merelyneeds to add nodes.110Mesh networks boast many possiblecommunication routes for data totravel along, and this redundancymakes the network resilient in caseany node fails.111 Whereas in businessthe idea of redundancy oftenconnotes ineffi ciency, in mesh networking

the contrary is true for threemain reasons: (1) the nodes themselvescan be cheap, (2) installation109 See Mesh Networking (Wikipedia entry), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_network(visited March 11, 2006).110 In a traditional wireless mesh network, all devices operate on the same communicationchannel; in a large network, this can lead to congestion and reduced bandwidth. Thislimitation can be alleviated by using multiple channels to prevent interference. See RichaDraves et al., Routing in Multi-Radio, Multi-Hop Wireless Mesh Networks (2004), availablehttp://research.microsoft.com/mesh/papers/multiradio.pdf.111 This method is similar to that of the Internet and other networks using peer-to-peerrouting.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies60is easy (a new node is automaticallydetected and incorporated by thenetwork), and (3) a dense networkof wireless nodes allows forlower-powered communication.112Mesh networking has other applicationsas well. Sensors can utilize alow-power mesh network to sendmessages directly to other devices inthe network, and could for exampletrigger a specifi c response if a chemical

spill was detected. Since meshnetworks rely on distributed control,and messages need not pass through



a center; the implication is that systemscan become self-directing.Ramifi cations and ConcernsMesh networking is a relatively youngtechnology, and there is a need forstandardization: At present there areover 70 competing schemes for how

the networks form and how the devicescommunicate with each other.The IEEE professional association ispursuing standardization, a sign thatthis challenge may be addressed inthe near future. As with other technologies,mesh network standardsshould be set in an open mannerthat best serves the interests of all,without allowing powerful entities todrive standards in a way that leads toabusive market dominance.

Mesh networking has the potentialsubstantially to disrupt the ability tocontrol content. In a more traditionalInternet topology, almost all contentis relayed through ISPs, which thenhave the capacity to fi lter that content– whether in service to government(as by preventing access to illegalcontent), or for their own interest (asby limiting the bandwidth availableto content provided by a competitor).A mesh network, by contrast, allowsthe creation of a great pool of users

who connect to each other in an adhoc fashion, without necessarily usingan ISP or any other central hub. Thetechnology thus can enable users toexchange information freely, therebyfurthering freedom of expression.At the same time, by reducing theneed for ISPs in local connectivity,mesh networking has the potentialto concentrate power in those ISPsthat serve the relatively few nodesthat connect to the Internet backbone.These ISPs may be increasinglyable to fi lter content and leveragethe situation to promote their owninterests. Furthermore, any disruptionto the shared Internet connectioncan have consequences for the entiregroup of users relying on the mesh112 The strength of an electromagnetic signal is inversely proportional to the square of tdistance from the source of the signal. It thus requires less power to relay a signal acromultiple short distances than to broadcast the signal directly across a greater distance.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies61network. Given these considerations,

mesh networks may need to retainmultiple points of connection to theInternet backbone, preferably operated



by separate entities to avoidmonopolistic behavior.David Clark notes: “Mesh networkingraises issues about policy for spectrumallocation, industry structure, and soforth. There is sort of a classic strugglegoing on, with incumbents using

regulation to slow down change.”113Beyond competition, there are securityrisks implicit in mesh networks.Without checkpoints through whichall data must fl ow, harmful virusesor worms could spread throughouta mesh community. Such hazardsmay reinforce demand for digitalidentity management and othersecurity-related technologies, in turnmagnifying the infoethics impact ofthose technologies.

113 Interview with David Clark at MIT, November 11, 2005.114 “Serial entrepreneur” Dewayne Hendricks is CEO of the Dandin Group.115 See “Focus on Wireless: Special Study on Wireless Spectrum” at http://www.netdialogue.org/casestudy/ -- created in conjunction with the research arm of the Microsoft CorporatioThis case study examines the 5 GHz spectrum and its potential for international use. Withithese web pages, Net Dialogue presents information on 5 GHz’s worldwide availability, itsprospects for regulation, and the standards that may someday make use of it.The Tools Make the RulesAn interview with Dewayne Hendricks114Key to the Internet’s integration into our lives is its spread throughout our built enviroWhere the Internet cannot be found, modern life will not exist; here, the physicallayer of Internet governance becomes particularly important. While to date the Internethas reached most users by wires – copper, coaxial, and now fi ber – many of its applicatio

will soon derive their value from untethered links to the network. The Internet isbecoming a pervasive part of modern life, and wireless access to the Internet will soonbecome as ubiquitous as air itself.In one sense, these wireless connections are simpler to deploy than their wired counterparbecause they require less physical infrastructure: There are fewer wires to layand fewer landowners to appease. But while a wire in the ground is virtually the sameeverywhere, the wireless spectrum is not. In nations such as the United States, spectrumhas been carefully divided and mostly regulated. In places like China, the opposite istrue. Other countries’ policies lie somewhere in between.115The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies62According to spectrum expert Dewayne Hendricks, “Carving out the radio spectruminto a series of walled preserves is an artifact of the past. By licensing spectrum, polichave fostered the notion that the spectrum is a scarce resource where accessto it has to be strictly managed or ordered. Changes in technology which started in theearly 1950s have shown us that this perspective is inaccurate.”Dewayne notes that, with the advent of devices such as software and cognitiveradios, and concepts like spectrum underlay (a.k.a. overlay), “the Information Societycan start to treat the spectrum as a dynamically allocable resource, where access isdictated by the needs and requirements of the devices making use of it at any giventime.”The amateur radio spectrum and its use for almost one hundred years is the best exampleof this phenomenon, he says. Amateur radio has operated under a spectrum“commons” model for all these years with no major adverse eff ects, and it has fosteredan environment where innovation has fl ourished; drawing a parallel, Dewayne asserts:

“The more recent creation of the unlicensed bands have shown to all what resultswhen society makes a spectrum commons accessible to countless devices.”When asked about the future, Dewayne replies: “It is hard to predict where a spectrum



commons will take us. Just three years ago, if one had predicted that the major industrialcities of the world would now be covered by Wi-Fi ‘clouds’, people would not havebelieved it.” Yet this is where these societies are today.In conclusion, Dewayne refl ects: “I believe that there is ample evidence out there nowfor policymakers all over the world to start to rethink their approaches to spectrumpolicy and give serious consideration to the concept of open spectrum.”This work is licensed under a Creative Commons “Attribution 2.0” License.116

116 See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/.Grid ComputingMesh and other networking technologiesare paving the way for countlessdevices throughout the world to beconnected to the Internet. Of course,many of these machines have verylow storage capacity and computingpower. For them to off er true participationin the Information Society,they need a way to access additionalresources. Grid computing off ers

possibilities here.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies63What Grid Computing IsSimply stated, “grid computing” is atechnology that allows devices linkedthrough a network to share computingpower or data storage capacity, and soto appear to operate as a single, extrapowerful computer. By combiningresources, machines linked in a gridcomputing system can perform computationsthat would be impossible

or too time consuming for a singlecomputer to do. This computationalcooperation thus allows regular usersto perform large tasks, such as modelingthe global fi nancial system orpredicting climate change. A machinelinked in such a system can also accessdata that is too bulky for it to store onits own.A grid computing system can beorganized to function like a utility,whereby computing resources areavailable “on tap,” similar to the waywater and electricity are available inthe developed world.117Grid computing has existed as a notionfor decades, with the fi rst conceptionsin the 1960s cast as “computertime sharing.” However, it has onlybeen in the last fi ve years or so thatadvancements in computer processing,memory, and networking haveculminated to allow an appreciationof the technology’s benefi ts. With thespread of the Internet, broadband networks,

and cheap, high-performancecomputers using open standards, gridcomputing has now enjoyed wider



acceptance as a concept.118Grid computing is being marketed toenterprises in the name of effi ciency.For example, the Sun Microsystemsweb site touts grid computing benefi tsas including “cost reduction,” “shortertime to market,” “increased quality

and innovation,” and the “ability to dothings previously not possible.”119Similarly, IBM says that grid computingbrings business benefi ts byallowing a company to: “Acceleratetime to results… Enable collaborationand promote operational fl exibility…Effi ciently scale to meet variablebusiness demands… Increase productivity…Leverage existing capitalinvestments…,” with technology benefits heralded as “Infrastructure

117 In 1965 developers of the Multics operating system (an ancestor of Linux) presented avision of “computing as an utility”. See http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/Gridhistory/history.html, viewed on March 7, 2006. The term “grid computing” stems from a metaphorused in the early 1990s to connote computing power that is as easy to access as an electripower grid.118 Daniel Minoli, A Networking Approach to Grid Computing, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & SonsInc., 2005, p. 3.119 See http://www.sun.com/software/grid/, viewed March 5, 2006.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies64optimization… Increase[d] access todata and collaboration… Resilient,highly available infrastructure…”120

Meanwhile, Oracle advertises itsservices in the following way: “Gridcomputing enables you to create asingle IT infrastructure that can beshared by all your business processes.Oracle 10g software is specifi cally designedfor grid computing, deliveringa higher quality of service to thosebusiness processes at a much lowercost.”121How Grid Computing WorksAs explained on the GridCafé website of the European Organization forNuclear Research (CERN), a grid hasfi ve basic features:1. Global resource sharing;2. Security;3. Load balancing;4. Distance neutrality; and5. Open standards.122In terms of global resource sharing,computers in a grid computingnetwork share computing and storageresources across geographicallydistributed organizations that have

diff erent administrative domains.Separate computers in a networkindicate when they can off er spare



computing power or storage space,and devices needing those resourcescan then draw upon it. When thisprocess is initiated, computationalneeds of a given user are brokeninto discreet pieces and distributedto machines on the network. Each

individual machine works on itspiece and then sends back the resultfor recombination with the resultsobtained from other participants. AsCERN elaborates, “This is more thansimple fi le exchange: it is direct accessto remote software, computers anddata. It can even give you access andcontrol of remote sensors, telescopesand other devices that do not belongto you.”123Security may be thought of as involving

four interrelated aspects – thatis, access, authorization, authenticationand accounting. For access,participants specify which resources(software, computers, or data) maybe used by whom and at what time,and what can be done with them.The authorization mechanism checksto see whether a requested job is inline with the sharing relationshipsthat have been established. In the120 See http://www-1.ibm.com/grid/about_grid/benefi ts.shtml, viewed March 5, 2006.121 See http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/grid/index.html, viewed January 27, 2006.

122 See http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/challenges/challenges.html, viewed March 5,2006.123 See http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/challenges/share.html, viewed March 5, 2006.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies65authentication process, the identityof a participant (resource provider oruser) is verifi ed. Finally, accountinginvolves billing for usage; this aspectwill increasingly become a focus asgrids move from the experimentalphase in academic and scientifi cresearch centers and become morewidely used by society generally.124 Aspolicymakers and technologists tryto address these security concerns,approaches in digital identity managementand computer certifi cationmay be looked to as solutions.Load balancing refers to the needfor a grid to allocate resources efficiently. Instead of humans trying tooptimize resources, myriad “middleware”programmes enable machinesto negotiate with each other – with

some acting as agents (telling aboutusers, data, and resources) and othersas brokers (striking deals on access to



and payment for these services) inthe market of computing and storageresources. Metadata (data aboutdata) allow this exchange by indicating“how, when and by whom aparticular set of data was collected,how the data is formatted, and where

in the world it is stored – sometimes atseveral locations…”125 As such, there isa relation between the developmentof grid computing and semantic weband digital identity managementtechnology.Distance neutrality refers to the abilityto share grid resources from diverse,remote locations in an optimally efficient manner and without delays inthe processing of jobs.Similar to the way the Internet is a

network of networks, “the Grid” asenvisioned will be one large Gridcomprised of overlapping grid networks– with a need for commonstandards to allow applications torun across them. To answer this need,hundreds of players around the world(companies, academic institutions,other research institutions, etc.) havebeen cooperating in developingstandards. Perhaps the biggest boonto this standard making came withtheir merging of regional grid advocacy

organizations into the GlobalGrid Forum126 in 2001. This group isnow developing a standard calledthe Open Grid Services Architecture,which is expected to be key for enablingthe Grid.127 To complement this124 See http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/challenges/access.html, viewed March 5, 2006.125 See http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/gridatwork/middleware.html, viewed March 6,2006.126 Global Grid Forum members as of 2005 are available at http://www.gridforum.org, viewedMarch 5, 2006.127 See http://www.gridforum.org/documents/GFD.30.pdf, viewed on March 7, 2006.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies66overarching architectural standard,the Globus Alliance has released anopen source software package, the“Globus Toolkit”,128 to foster developmentof grids and applications thatcan run on them.Notably absent in the basic features isa call for “net neutrality”, which holdsthat there should be no discriminationamong types of informationfl owing over the network. This principle

has largely been held as a truth inthe fi rst few decades of the Internet,based on the idea that effi ciency and



innovation are best served by thenetwork’s doing nothing other thantransmitting information. The idea hasbeen to keep “intelligence at the ends”of the network, meaning where usersconnect, instead of having assessmentsmade by the network itself in

a way that may result in obstacles.129In recent years, however, companieshave designed technology that candistinguish eff ectively among diff erenttypes of traffi c (e.g, voice, video,or simple textual data). Hence, thosecompanies are advocating a departurefrom the net neutrality principlein the name of quality of service.At the international level this quality ofservice argument has been advancedeff ectively in the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU), whichhas launched the Next GenerationNetworks Global Standards Initiative(NGN-GSI) to implement such capabilitieson a worldwide basis. Interestingly,the Global Grid Forum and the ITU’sNGN-GSI group are collaborating tosee how the technologies may complementeach other.130128 The Globus Alliance has been working on fundamental grid technologies for the GlobusToolkit. The Globus Alliance was started in 1996 as the Globus Project, based at theUniversity of Southern California and the University of Chicago in the USA. Now called theGlobus Alliance, this group currently includes the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden

the University of Edinburgh, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications inIllinois, USA, and Univa Corporation, based in Illinois, USA. Sponsors include a range ofU.S. federal agencies (e.g., DARPA, DOE, NASA, and NSF), along with commercial partnerssuch as IBM and Microsoft.129 See “End to End Arguments in System Design,” J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark, MLaboratory for Computer Science, 1984 (available at http://www.reed.com/Papers/endtoend.pdf, viewed on June 22, 2006).130 For example, the ITU and the Global Grid Forum hosted a joint meeting in Geneva,Switzerland in October 2006. See http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/grid/index.html (asviewed on June 22, 2006).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies67Free Software: Access to Information and KnowledgeBy Georg Greve131Information and knowledge have always been at the heart of human evolution: They haveshaped societies, helped build peace and were reason for war. Information and knowledgein the hand of a few can enslave entire peoples. Used wisely they can liberate them.Information and communication technologies have fundamentally changed the rulesfor access to both information and knowledge. Digitalization has for the fi rst time madeit conceivable to transfer information in real time, without loss and at virtually no costacross the planet.Software is a cultural technique at the heart of this change, the medium that shapes thisevolutionary step. Software codifi es the rules along which information is exchanged andconverted to knowledge. It controls who can do this and under which conditions: Accessto and control over software determines, in part, today’s knowledge and power structures.

That is why software is such a controversial and central issue.Software can be designed to give all power to change and enforce rules to a single personor group; this is the default approach in proprietary or non-free software.



But software can also be designed to give all users power over their own computers, andthe right to determine how to interact with others in this new, virtual environment. Forthis right to be fully provided, software must give its users four fundamental freedoms:the freedom of unlimited use for any purpose; the freedom to study the software andlearn how it works; the freedom to modify the software to adapt it to the needs of others;and the freedom to copy and distribute the software in original or modifi ed form.The rules of proprietary software make many dependant on the good will of a very few.

The rules of Free Software provide an equal and independent playing fi eld, which is whyit is a natural choice for all activities that seek to promote Access to Information andKnowledge for everyone.132131 Georg Greve serves as President of the Free Software Foundation Europe.132 More information about Free Software can be found on the web pages of the Free SoftwarFoundation Europe and the GNU Project: http://www.fsfeurope.org; http://www.gnu.org.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies68Ramifi cations and ConcernsGrid computing in time could reshapeaccess to computing. Ratherthan requiring each individual to

have a high-powered computer, gridcomputing encourages the use oflow-cost “dumb terminals,” each withonly enough computing power toperform routine tasks and to coordinatecommunication with a centralcomputing resource. These terminalsare generally much cheaper than astandard computer, and they therebysuggest a way to provide computingaccess to the poorest regions of theworld (particularly in combinationwith mesh networking).

This optimism presumes that usersfrom poor regions will in fact be ableto access the shared computing utility.If, however, grid computing is run as acommercial operation, ability to paymay exclude many areas of the worldfrom sharing this resource; if it is notstructured as a commercial enterprise,then some organization will have toagree to subsidize its existence.While distribution of gains will needto be worked out, grid computing intheory promises outstanding effi ciencies.Instead of having billions of devicesthat either have unused computingpower or are constrained in this capacity,this technology allows resourcesto go where they are needed. Just asother technologies herald vast effi ciencies,grid computing’s economic gainscould boost the standard of living andso buttress the right to life, liberty andsecurity of person.In practice, of course, there will be significant hurdles in terms of accounting

and system security that will need tobe overcome. Grid computing withina single organization is far easier than



an open grid using the Internet.A large-scale grid is not without itsinfoethics hazards. The security risksimplicit in sharing computing powerand data with others will makedemand for digital identity managementand other security-related

technologies more pronounced, inturn heightening the ethical concernsassociated with those technologies.Moreover, if grid authentication werecentralized or concentrated, accesschokepoints theoretically could discriminateamong people wishing toparticipate in the network.Similarly, a grid architecture byits nature demands distinctionsbased on content. The technologyfacilitating these distinctions as currently

designed will allow “deeppacket inspection” by governmentsor companies providing Internetservices – meaning that these entitiescould monitor and possibly blockthe fl ow of specifi c information. Thethreat to freedom of expression isobviously profound here.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies69These negative prospects weighagainst the benefi ts of effi ciencies andaccess that will accompany the vast

computing power, data accessibility,and data storage of grid computing.As with other technologies, grid computingitself is neutral, and it can beharnessed for a variety of purposes.Decision-makers today must balancethe infoethics tradeoff s and steer theInformation Society toward soundgrid computing choices.Reading and Libraries: Two Notes133David Weinberger134, Joho the Blog, March 6, 2006I can’t wait until we’re all reading on e-books. Because they’ll be networked, reading wilbecome social. Book clubs will be continuous, global, ubiquitous, and as diverse as theWeb.And just think of being an author who gets to see which sections readers are underliningand scribbling next to. Just think of being an author given permission to reply.I can’t wait.~ ~ ~As we put our works on line, we’ll only need one library…Why have more than one library when you can link to and aggregate whatever you need?Oh, the library will be distributed and portions will be replicated for safety’s sake – wehave learned something from Alexandria – but that’s just an implementation “detail.”When all our works are digitized, a local library will be nothing but a playlist.~ ~ ~Licensed under a Creative Commons “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0”

license (for details, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/).133 Available at http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/reading_and_libraries_two_ note.html#comments.



134 David Weinberger is a Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society aHarvard Law School.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies70New ComputingTechnologiesMoore’s Law holds that the computing

power of a single chip doublesapproximately every 18 months.135Each time we appear to reach a limitationthat would end this exponentialgrowth, a new technology arrivesthat permits computers to continueto increase in capacity as the priortechnology approaches its limits.There are several technologies thatoff er the potential of expandingcomputing capacity beyond thecapabilities of today’s integrated circuits.

136 This section touches on someof these technologies, and then addressestheir common consequence:the continuing increase of computingpower.Nanotubes and Three-Dimensional ComputingCurrent integrated circuits are essentiallytwo-dimensional; as chipsbecome more complex, with multiplesubcomponents, the constraintof operating in two dimensions witha fi xed number of layers for interchip

communication is a limitation oncomputing power.By expanding computation intothree dimensions, this limitation canbe circumvented. Although it may bepossible to achieve this augmentationwith silicon-based transistors,other transistors may be better suitedto a three-dimensional processor.Nanotubes – i.e. cylinders formed of ahexagonal network of carbon atoms– could be a more viable vehiclefor three-dimensional computing.However, this technology is not currentlyavailable commercially, asmanufacturing techniques to placenanotubes into a prearranged patterndo not yet exist.Molecular and BiologicalComputingOther new technologies seek todisplace the transistor – the core ofmodern devices – with completelynew computing elements. Molecularcomputers utilize individual

molecules as computing devices, allowingdata to be represented by agiven confi guration of a molecule,



and computations to be performedby altering the molecule. Likewise,biological computers use living cells135 See Wikipedia, Moore’s Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law (viewedFebruary 26, 2006).136 See generally Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near, Ch. 3 (2005).The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies

71as computers, with the cell’s ownDNA determining the computationthat it performs. Research is currentlyongoing concerning both of thesecomputing technologies.137Optical and QuantumComputingIn a traditional computer, each elementperforms one computation onone piece of data at any given time.New technologies, however, can

allow a single computing elementto work on multiple data pieces atonce.Optical computing permits this parallelprocessing by encoding data ina stream of light. By use of a prismtechnique, these streams of light canpass through the same device at thesame time without interfering witheach other. A single optical computingelement – which performs acalculation by altering a stream – canthus process several data elements at

the same time.Quantum computing uses the nondeterministicquantum nature ofparticles to represent every possiblestate of the particle, eventually generatinga particle in a specifi c statethat corresponds to the solution tothe problem.One limitation shared by both opticaland quantum computing is thenature of the computations that theysolve: Each is only effi cient whenperforming the same calculationon a very large data set. Thus, thesetechnologies are clearly applicableto certain problems – such as imageprocessing calculations that requireeach portion of the image to beprocessed – but are more diffi cultto apply to calculations on a smallerscale. However, the advent of gridcomputing may off er additionalopportunities to utilize massively parallelcomputing technologies such asthese.

Ramifi cations and ConcernsAlthough most of the technologiesdiscussed in this section are not likely



to exist commercially for a few years,they suggest promising alternativesto the existing method of computation.Each presents its own technicalchallenges that must be overcome inorder to make the technology viable;however, none of the challenges

appear insurmountable, and it is allbut certain that at least one of thesetechnologies will serve to allow thecontinuing increase in computingpower.137 Id.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies72These technologies, taken as awhole, suggest that the InformationSociety is nowhere near the limits ofits capacity. Computers will almost

certainly continue to grow smaller,more powerful and more networkedin the future, and the Internet’s explosionfrom curiosity 15 years agoto dominant paradigm today signifies only the very beginning of theInformation Society.Such computing power could gofar in achieving infoethics goals. Forexample, high-powered computingcould enable translations on a widescale, helping to bridge people of differentlanguage groups and promote

diversity. So, too, these resourcescould boost access to communicationby providing computation muscle forcomputing grids – enabling peoplewith cheap, low-powered devicesto access information generated orstored elsewhere.Cutting in the opposite direction isthe potential increase in surveillancecapabilities. While today such intelligencemay seem far-fetched, thistechnology could have the muscle tomake sense of enormous quantitiesof data gathered by search engines,ISPs, video cameras, fi nancial intermediaries,and other data collectionpoints. Here again, surveillancecould put a severe dampener on thepractice of human rights, particularlythose instrumental in preventing theabuse of power since surveillancecould be used to thwart privacy, assembly,and dissent.These technologies could also disruptgeo-politics as entities enjoying early

access to them would have a signifi -cant “fi rst mover” advantage. As such,the technologies could be used to



threaten the right to life, liberty, andsecurity of person and other rights;of course, or they could also be usedto usher in changes that improve theexercise of these rights.To prepare for these seeminglyoverwhelming technologies, the

Information Society must considertoday’s relatively small programmesthat will pave the way for such power,and make every eff ort to ensure thatmachines are coded with a languageof respect for human rights.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies73Table: Summary of Infoethics ConcernsTechnology Possible Positive Eff ects Possible Negative Eff ectsSemantic web Expands access to information;Could cause polarization

and lack of public discourse,though this is debated.Brings effi ciencies (boostingthe economy and with it thestandard of living, which somepeople see as directly relatedto the right to life, liberty andsecurity of person).Could make it easier to blockpeople from receiving variouscontent;Could make it easier to preventpeople from imparting content

(e.g., thwarting certain contentor competition supplied bynew entrants);Could put people on the samelevel as objects.Digital identitymanagementCould enhance privacy andsecurity;Could bolster freedom ofassembly by helping peopleidentify others with similarinterests;Could bring effi ciencies andset web services free (boostingthe economy and with it thestandard of living, which somepeople see as directly relatedto the right to life, liberty andsecurity of person).Could allow collusion andprofi ling by identity providersand relying parties;Could easily be converted intoa government-centric system;

Could enable discrimination;Could cause humans to be atthe mercy of machines tasked



to act as agents;Could intensify security risks ofcompromised computers.Biometrics Could bring accountability,which some people see as tiedto the right to life, liberty andsecurity of person.

Could increase government’scapacity to provide the publicwith governmental services(e.g., speedier passport checksat airports). Some peoplewould view this as promotingthe right to life, liberty andsecurity of person.Could be coupled with digitalidentity management tools asa pre-requisite for participationin Information Society

activities;Could lead to internationalsystem of centraladministration, butinternational bodies are notequipped to prevent the abuseof power;Could enable extensivesurveillance, thereby hurtingprivacy, freedom of associationand freedom of expression,among other freedoms.The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies - Case Studies

74Technology Possible Positive Eff ects Possible Negative Eff ectsRFID Could bring effi ciencies inthe supply chain (boostingthe standard of living, whichsome people see as related life,liberty and security).Could increase security byaugmenting enforcementcapabilities.Could impinge on freedomof religion if implants werenecessary for participation inthe Information Society.Could enable extensivesurveillance, impinging onprivacy and other freedoms.Sensors Could serve as life-savingdevices (directly related to theright to life, liberty and securityof person);Could help optimizeproduction and distribution(contributing to effi ciency andthereby life, liberty and security

of person).Could breed uncertaintyregarding the public domain



and access to information andthe means of communication;Could cause governments tohave sovereignty and securityconcerns.Could enable extensivesurveillance, impinging on

privacy and other freedoms.Geospatial weband LBSCould be viewed as helpingpeople to exercise their right toassociate;In extending the availabilityof emergency services, couldenhance the right to life, libertyand security of person.Could hinder privacy throughthe tracking of location;

Could allow discriminationand the blocking of assemblyand expression through thetracking of location.Mesh networking Could disrupt contentrestrictions (e.g., fi ltering orbandwidth allocation);Could help poor regionshave access to means ofcommunication.Could concentrate power inInternet-backbone connectionpoints;

Could give rise toauthentication that carriessimilar side eff ects as digitalidentity management tools(especially privacy).Grid computing Could provide computing anddata storage and retrieval forthe poor.By allowing resources to gowhere needed, would off ereffi ciencies.Could enable extensivesurveillance, impinging onprivacy and other freedoms;Could allow discrimination andother restrictions given accesschokepoints.New computingtechnologiesHigh-powered computingcould allow translations andbridge people;As computation behindcomputing grids, could boostaccess.

Could enable extensivesurveillance, impinging onprivacy and other freedoms;



Could disrupt geo-politicalbalance (e.g., by enablingdecryption).75As noted, the semantic web willgive computers metadata to helpthem sift through the enormous

amounts of information that havebeen generated and made availablevia the Internet. At present humansare helping to develop this metadata,but as the Information Societymoves into the future, machines willincreasingly create the vocabulary forthemselves. Metadata linguisticallycan equate a person with an object– for example placing a human anda piece of luggage in the genre ofthings to be tracked through airports

– but it can also order the world soas to make its wonders accessible topeople in a way they will enjoy – forexample labeling photos for easysharing among friends. Programmingcomputers so that they will put datapertaining to humans on a higherplane than that of objects couldprove important down the line.Digital identity managementoff ers a test case for this fl eshing outof what it means to be a person. Inthe early stage of computers’ linguistic

development, it would seemessential to describe humans not justin the contextual terms of “frequentrenter of cars,” or “high insurance risk,”but rather in terms that express whatis sacrosanct, or not to be violated– such as the right to seek, receiveand impart information. In this respect,digital identity managementtools could be used to assert rightsand seek automatic redress in casethey are violated.If machines are programmed to treathuman data with an extra high degreeof care, they will automatically processfi ngerprints, an iris pattern, or a walkinggait diff erently than they woulddigitize, say, mud, a car engine, or adog running. In this way, biometricscan serve to protect privacy and theright to associate freely rather thanto act against these freedoms. Thetechnology can be used for good, forexample helping people recognizeeach other and enjoy access to a

multitude of domains.Similarly, RFID, sensors, the geospatialweb and location-based



services have potential to hemhumans in as they make purchases,exhibit emotional reactions, andThe ShortStory RevisitedThe Short Story Revisited76

move about the physical world – withthis data becoming as manageableand searchable as other digitizedcontent, subject to possible collection,analysis, and use by unknownentities. It could prove diffi cult fora person to know what forces he issubject to, or to refute data when societygives it credence over a person’stestimony. Looking at the technologiesfrom another angle, there arebenefi cial uses – for example with

RFID tags promising to bring downa company’s costs of doing business,with sensors helping to ensure that awater treatment plant is safe, and LBSand the geospatial web bringing alost child home. These technologiesalso promise to let new forms of contentfl ower. To ensure the InformationSociety takes the right direction withrespect to these technologies, thekey will again be in designating howdiff erent types of data should betreated, with the end goal being to

promote the exercise of freedoms.With mesh networking, thesesame possibilities reach the developingworld, where new connectivitypromises to end the marginalizationof economies and the people livingin them. While incumbent companiesmay fear competition and others maydeem uncontrolled communicationa threat, the sharing of informationthrough these networks can helpdemocratize the Information Society.So, too, this kind of connectivity canopen the gateway for diversity ofcontent on information networks,facilitating communities based onshared culture and enabling people ofdiff erent cultures to understand eachother better. In this way, mesh networkingtechnology has potential tomaximize the benefi ts of educational,informational and cultural contentby expanding access to information.Indeed, technologies such as meshnetworking can extend the reach

of the Internet and make universalaccess to information a reality.As lightweight devices connected



to mesh networks and ever morepowerful computers all plug intothe grid, they may face diff erentconstraints depending on whetherthey are contributing or consumingresources. What will be importanthere is that people all enjoy the right

to equal access and are not discriminatedagainst in the authenticationand authorization processes basedon criteria that are unrelated toThe Short Story Revisited77computing and storage resources.Here again, the programmes peopledesign for computers today will bethe building blocks for these accesscontrols, and the Universal Declarationon Human Rights can serve to guide

the process.Designing the right systems at thisstage will prove pivotal for a futurethat draws upon new technologiessuch as optical or quantumcomputing. Today’s decisions mayprove crucial in ensuring that anyvast, virtual “brain” that emerges usesits cognitive force to protect peoplein their humanity. If the InformationSociety makes the right choices fromthe ground up, tomorrow’s highpoweredmachines may respect the

values that have been ordered. In thatsense, this future computing powerhas potential to guard human rightsbetter than people have to date. Thefl ip side, of course, could be dark.In sum, the fundamental issue is notinformation itself, but the freedomsthat it enables. The goal of theInformation Society, then, is to promotethe fulfi llment of infoethicsgoals through the ethical design,deployment, and use of technology.78Emerging technologies open many new opportunities and avenues for actionfor UNESCO and its partners to fulfi ll their respective mandates and engageproactively in the development of the Information Society, as shows the followingnon-exhaustive list of recommendations.1. ACTING AS A LABORATORY OF IDEAS THROUGH:1.1. Establishing an Advisory BoardInternational work on the ethical implications of emergingtechnologies should benefi t from regular insights by an AdvisoryBoard. Policymakers and people generally are interested in what toptechnology experts have to say, and there are complementarities inthe interests of UNESCO and the programmes of certain academicinstitutions focusing on technology – both of which embrace goals

like respect for human rights and access to knowledge. Therefore,having a special Advisory Board on infoethics would allow UNESCOto harness the knowledge of top technologists and to benefi t from



the respect accorded them.Such a group could help UNESCO continue to engage in thetypes of collaboration pursued during the World Summit on theInformation Society (WSIS), while avoiding the politics that weighdown large, high-profi le forums.To ensure the group’s fi ndings are adaptive and forward-thinking,this Advisory Board should include children and youth from around

the world, as well as experts in technology and infoethics.RecommendationsRecommendations79In addition, UNESCO could collaborate with academic institutions inhosting brainstorming sessions to consider pressing issues of the future.1.2. Establishing a Community of Technologists to ProtectPersonal DataAs noted in the survey, the control of personal data fl ow will provepivotal for the exercise of human rights and access to informationin the Information Society. This factor is one of the most importantidentifi ed in this survey of “Ethical Implications of Emerging

Technologies” as technology will increasingly have potential to beused to wield control over people’s existence.Because digital identity management will serve as the basecomponent for other technologies dealing with the fl ow of personaldata, and because industry is preparing to release new tools in thecoming months, this particular technology is suggested here as asubject for special collaboration.Substantive work on personal data protection would fi ll a void inthe international system. At present, there exists a critical need for theprotection of personal data. This need is recognized by the internationalgroup of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, who in September2005 adopted the Montreux Declaration calling for multilateralprinciples in this area. The need is also recognized by computer scientists

– especially leading fi gures in the Identity Gang industry group and inthe World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), who see their work as carryinggreat potential for harm or good, but who are looking for guidance as towhat principles they should design code to support.Of course, the topic of personal data protections is not new: Tocounteract the possibility of personal data being mishandled inthe information age, the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe (COE) eachdeveloped rules more than two decades ago.138 Together, these138 OECD members adopted the Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flowsof Personal Data in 1980. The COE adopted the Convention for the Protection of Individualswith Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, CETS 108, in 1981. Subsequentinstruments by these organizations have reinforced these ideas.Recommendations80initiatives comprise a solid list of protections. OECD principlesinclude collection limitation, data quality, purpose specifi cation, uselimitation, security safeguards, openness, individual participation,and accountability. Article 6 in the COE Convention adds an antidiscriminationprovision.However, the OECD rules are non-binding, and those of the COEhold only for signatories.139 Even if adopted on a binding basisthroughout the world, these instruments are legal only and assuch are impractical for guaranteeing the proper treatment ofpersonal data by machines located around the world. Working

with W3C and academic institutions, UNESCO could help thetechnology industry to develop tools to enforce personal dataprotections where law falls short.



2. ACTING AS A STANDARD SETTER2.1 Examining the Possibilities of Preparing a Code of EthicsIt is recommended that a Code of Ethics be prepared as a worldwidepoint of reference for ethics in the Information Society. A primaryobjective of the instrument would be to sensitize stakeholders tothe shared responsibility of actors in the Information Society topromote infoethics goals.

2.2 Preparing a Study on Network NeutralityIt is recommended that an examination be conducted of the waydiff erent regimes regulate their networks (whether they imposeneutrality rules, etc.) and the resulting networks these regulationsproduce. The Organization could watch to see when internationalrulemaking or standards setting might upset the principle of networkneutrality, and it could intervene with appropriate contributions todiscussions. Academic institutions could be asked to assist in thiscapacity.139 Signatories include 38 European countries, 33 of which have ratifi ed the Convention.Recommendations81

2.3 Publicizing Infoethics Aspects of InternationalRulemaking and Standards SettingWhile the composition of an Advisory Board and the brainstorminggroups should remain relatively small to enable eff ectivediscussion, substantive points should be made available to thepublic via a web site, with summaries also available in writtenform for distribution to interested areas in the world that are notyet connected to the Internet. Meetings can be conducted viaIRC and, if in person, can be webcast.3. FOSTERING PUBLIC EDUCATIONABOUT THE STATE OF TECHNOLOGYOther substantive work could focus on (a) whether the public has a right toknow what the state of technology is; (b) if so, how this right can be given

eff ect; and (c) how people can learn to understand technology’s workingsand respond in a way that respects each other’s human rights in a crisis.UNESCO should meanwhile support open standards and protocols thatare generated through democratic processes not dominated by largecorporations.The use of OpenDocument Format and other open formats should also beencouraged as they help mitigate lock-in to certain technologies.140 Otherinitiatives to consider include pursuing free and open software, as well asthe “Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems”141 developed last year.To further these movements, UNESCO should become involved instandards-setting organizations and consult with technical experts, both tobroaden its own understanding of the issues and to lend further strengthto its actions.140 More information may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument, viewedMarch 15, 2006.141 See, e.g., http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/roadmap.pdf.82According to David Reed,142 a computerscientist who has been heavily infl uentialin the development of the Internet,“Ubiquitous computing and ubiquitousconnectivity are the synergy of interest– these technologies together wouldallow large-scale information-sharingsystems.” This section details an extensive

interview with him.The Legacy of HierarchiesUbiquitous computing until recently



was aff ected by where computingoriginated – i.e. in a small sector ofsociety (including large-scale organizationslike the military or bigbusiness since they could aff ord theearly versions of the technology). Thissmall sector was using the technology

primarily for computing and recordkeeping. The technology is thus taintedwith the bias toward supportingwhat large-scale organizations share:that is, a “command and control” cultureof overall vision with a boss andhierarchical structure, with this limitedset of decision-makers defi ning whatinformation the group was interestedin and who had the privilege of sharinginformation with whom.In early days of computing, 30 or

40 years ago, decisions concerningmany systems were made in this typeof hierarchical setting or culture. So,for example, computer security wasdefi ned as: “What’s good for the organizationas a whole should be allowed,and what’s not should be disallowed.”Meanwhile, there was no democraticdefi nition of what was good for theorganization as a whole. Securityin the military context was heavilyworked out in computer systems asnon-discretionary access control – in

other words, it was not within a person’sown discretion to decide withwhom to share information. The ideawas to require individual decisionsto be in line with overall goals, withthese goals implemented accordingto top-down rules, manuals, andpolicy systems that were passed outto people who had no choice but tofollow them.ANNEX: A DemocraticInformation Society(Summary of an Interviewwith David P. Reed)142 An interview with David P. Reed, Adjunct Professor at the MIT Media Lab. Reed codevelothe Internet design principle of “end-to-end” (with MIT Professors J.H. Saltzerand David D. Clark) and set out “Reed’s Law.”ANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an Interview with David P. Reed)83The business world was a moreheterogeneous environment. Thequestion of information fl ow focusedon boundaries, with each companyhaving its diff erent set of goals. Within

a company the goals were shared,and information fl owed between andwithin diff erent divisions. However,



cross-organizational information fl owwas to follow rules defi ned by a selectset of people. (In other words, thissystem was hierarchical but more fl exiblethan the military.)That way of thinking about informationsharing was not viable: When

computerized, the military failed towork. The reason was that in practice,people had always bent the militaryrules; they were empowered enoughto break the rules in the real world, andthis discretion allowed the organizationto function. The same was truein companies, where word-of-mouthinformation was fl owing across organizationsirrespective of what wassupposed to fl ow. Trade secrets werenot strictly enforced. This fl exibility allowed

companies to cut deals becausepeople had a sense of valuations.Ubiquitous computing is here todayto the extent that nearly every communicationthat touches a computeror goes through a network does so ina way that the information is modifi ed,or fi ltered, or facilitated. The systemworks despite the fact that designersof computer code have asked thecomputers to follow a rigid set of protocolsor procedures.System designers have been assuming

that the myth of how people communicateis the way they actually do, andthey have tried to build into computersystems the enforcement of the waysociety thought it communicated:They try to apply this myth to computers,for example, in the way that adesktop machine relates to a printer.Every time coders try to enforce suchhierarchies, there is a universal lessonthat the story that society is tellingitself is wrong.Our society tends to think the mostvaluable information is in the mostexpensive computer or in the bosses’heads. Not so – actually those in thecenter have almost no information.There may be some good judgmentor wisdom, but most information is atthe ends or throughout the culture.As society moves computers out intothat space, it frees that information tobe more usable … and discovers thatthe most useful information is notwhat is stored in the center. The “myth

of where the valuable information is” isbeing corrected.Ubiquitous computing and ubiquitous



networking represent the containersfor the most valuable information andthe most important decisions – that is,the distributed ones that in aggregatemake the world go around.ANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an Interview with David P. Reed)

84UNESCO probably has its own myththat it should not challenge strongauthority.By way of example: A governmentwhose leadership prefers the concentrationof power and secrecy isharmful to its country. The powerfulend up isolated from the very thingthat makes the world work – that is,information. There is a risk that theinformation they have at the center

is wrong – after all, anything that issecret is unlikely to be calibratedagainst reality.Computing is ExtraordinarilyInexpensiveComputing is extraordinarily inexpensive,and it is diffi cult for people tocomprehend that it is going to be evencheaper. Take, for example, the $100Laptop Project. It does not matter if itis that project or others – the genius isin recognizing that in a couple of yearscomputers will be that cheap. The

magic is it is the fi rst computing devicespecifi cally designed not to be anotheroffi ce computing platform – rather,the $100 Laptop is designed to be amedium for human expression – thus,these devices constitute “networkedexpression machines”. ICTs are no longerprimarily concerned with automating abusiness process, but rather the value isseen in education: This ICT is being distributedto children. The focus is not onaccessing some distant web site, butrather on enabling a group of peopleto communicate amongst themselveson a more local and useful basis. Thegoal is to facilitate individual expressionand sharing, to allow collaboration. Itmay result in a hierarchy, but not onethat was imposed, and not one that ispermanent.Fixed hierarchies historically existedbecause it was diffi cult to form themin the fi rst place; but now setting upad hoc groups is easy. This principleis at the heart of Reed’s Law, which is

a mathematical way of expressing aless mathematical point: If you makegroup formation or relationship forming



lower cost, and it is a valuablething to do, you’ll be doing a lot moreand capturing a lot more value.143As Ronald Coase has noted, fi rmswere set up for avoiding transactioncosts.144 Now they are not sonecessary. Now organizations can

be temporary, effi cient, and low cost.As technology changes to enable amore effi cient form of these virtual,technological affi liations, pieces ofsociety can organize themselves to atask much more effi ciently.143 For the mathematical derivation of the number of possible subgroups, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%27s_law (as viewed on March 14, 2006).144 “The Nature of the Firm” in Readings in Price Theory, Stigler and Boulding, editors. CIL: R. D. Irwin, 1952.ANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an Interview with David P. Reed)

85Moreover, groups can form effi cientlyacross a larger scope – for instance,the Internet allows planetary-scalegroups to form effi ciently.Long Distance to Proxi to MobileIn addition to the dismantling oftransaction costs for group organization,ICTs have witnessed anothertrend relevant here: As networkingtechnology covers local areas moreeffi ciently, “proxi-com” sets in, andtelecommunication – “tele” (far) “com”

(communication) – is not necessarilyan accurate way of describingcommunication. Rather, nearby communicationon the community scaleare more aptly called “proxi-com”.In early days of telephony there weremany little networks within towns,long-distance networks betweentowns, and even international callingnetworks. The phone companies fi guredthey could charge a good dealfor long distance because peoplecould not walk to their neighbor’shouse to have the conversation.Since the phone companies couldnot make much money off local calls(as people would walk), they set fl atrates for local service. These fl at ratesled to ever more phone lines for localpurposes, with the costs funded fromlong distance service. Next telephonymoved to cellular networks that hadmobility – meaning industrializedsociety went from long-distance toproxi to mobile communication.

Internet architects had a grand view ofunifying all communication networksso that they would all be interoperable.



Much of the value off ered bythe Internet was cheap long distanceas people could log into computersacross the country. Indeed, the webwas accessing data from around theworld. Now growth is happening inthe local area Internet. The value a

person gets from a broadband connectionstill includes being able toaccess sites elsewhere in the world,but newly popular activities like settingup a wiki tends to correspond tolocal space. People care more aboutwhat is local, and those values arebeing moved onto the Internet.For telephony, mobile communicationbecame important when peoplewho were accustomed to local communicationbegan moving around

while communicating. Now theInformation Society is getting mobileInternet. Once local areas have beencovered with connectivity, the resultis mobility. People can move aboutand plug into the network.This last stage of the mobile Internethas not really started yet. It correlateswith more mobile computingplatforms. The $100 Laptop Projectis interesting because it is mobile, anANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an Interview with David P. Reed)

86“expression machine” that is also designedto work outdoors rather thanin an offi ce. Using straightforwardWi-Fi technology, along with softwareallowing people with laptops tosend fi les – a group can have a musicjam session. This Wi-Fi technology isthe fi rst instance of a very fl exible,high-speed mobile network – andit represents viral communication, acategory of networks that work withoutpreexisting infrastructures. Sucha network could cover the wholeplanet, with the devices themselvesforming this network.The technology has reached the pointwhere to use very effi cient radios doesnot require a lot of money. Historically,the slow evolution of culture has beenthe brake. “Viral” communication islike viral marketing – it grows by wordof mouth… excitement… peopleteaching other people. Technologicalchanges require synchronization

with cultural values to be successful.(Again, the military has not been thekey driver of viral communication



because they have repeatedly wantedhierarchy, where they add a layer toreduce connectivity. Current Chineseeff orts to block communication arebased on the same misconception.)Communication media are not in andof themselves that cultural – rather,

cultures will overlay themselves onthe Internet as it provides a newvehicle for cultures to express themselves.Wires and digital-ness are notthe culture itself, but the means bywhich culture may be expressed.Culture is not implemented with rawconnectivity, but with users. Cultureis exogenous not endogenous.Things that Take Off , Scale, andReinforce ThemselvesUbiquitous computing and mesh

networks allow the creation ofbig eff ects. There is one problem,though: The technology can amplifyanything, good or bad; it is likea biological epidemic – a process ofamplifi cation of viruses. The technologyis good the way it allows peopleto form groups, to reach out, and tospread the word about good things.But the same dynamics happen withcomputer viruses and spam: Whensomeone wants to use the networkfor ill purposes, there is a great deal

of possibility.Large-scale network defects could becurbed either by dampening them(that is, slowing their growth) or by creatinga counter virus that could chasethe whole phenomenon and kill it. Thislatter approach carries the danger ofbeing a cure that turns out to be as badas the disease – like using DDT to killmosquitoes but then having the sideeff ect of killing birds. So the network isnot a force for good only.ANNEX: A Democratic Information Society(Summary of an Interview with David P. Reed)87The best hope is education in a deepsense – to bring every participantin the Information Society up to thelevel where he understands how thesystem works and people can actcollectively on it. Society dealt withdisasters of old through a commandand-control structure. Now peoplemust understand the system they arepart of – so they can benefi t from local

decision-making when undergoingcatastrophic failures. The potentialfrom proxi-com is thus in allowing



more local and resilient recovery –but, again, humans must understandhow it works. The Information Societyneeds education on this front.In short, society needs to educatepeople about the systems themselves.This is a cultural challenge.

ConclusionThe most important part of comingto terms with this “far more connected,global computing andinformation-sharing” paradigm thatthe Information Society is enteringis that (1) everyone must understandit, and that (2) each piece ultimatelyshares responsibility (a) for the successof the system as a whole, and(b) for the fact that a person’s actionshave ramifying and amplifying eff ects

on people far away that he might noteven see. It is a challenge to educateall people to be able to live in a worldlike that. There are huge benefi ts andshared risk.To a greater extent than before becauseof technology, organizational heads donot represent the best knowledge toaddress problems. There is a systematicbias to ask only the heads to be in theroom for decision-making. However,children aged 0-20 are much moreaware of cultural and technological

issues than older people are. They aremore knowledgeable about evolvingcultures than older people whoassume the children will resemblethem. (They will not.) Therefore it isimportant to incorporate children indecision-making processes more. If societycannot let them vote, it should atleast listen to what they are saying andhonestly try to understand the peoplewho are adjusting to new technologiesat a rapid pace. Places where de novoadoption is occurring are the places tolearn. Those people are appropriatingnew technologies without prior constraints– and they may show the restof the Information Society what is possibleor what is useful. The $100 Laptopis a nice example: It will teach aboutcultural adaptation to technology.The Information Society must recognizethat the scale of things is larger and thereach of things is longer systematically.People need to learn to focus not juston local phenomenon but on global

phenomenon.