Mary's problem Consider an HCI consultant, Mary, with extensive experience in evaluating web sites and GUI's. She has just received an evaluation contract for a new accounting product made by company A due to her prior experience with e-commerce site evaluation. The work involves assessing the training requirements and the usability of the system. During the initial configuration of her usability laboratory she becomes aware that software she is to evaluate contains a GUI already patented by a rival company B, which she evaluated several weeks before. Under her contractual agreements Mary is not allowed to discuss the evaluation of a product with anyone outside the contract. She therefore has an obligation to company B not to provide information regarding their product to anyone else without their permission. She has a similar obligation to company A. Can she continue with the evaluation? If she cannot continue with the evaluation how does she inform company A of the patent violation? Does she have an obligation to let Company B know Company A has copied their GUI? Underlying the various ethical issues in this case is that of the violation of intellectual property rights. Such a violation is certainly illegal, but whether it is also immoral is more contentious. When examined in detail its basis is not as solid as it is often assumed, despite the commonly held view presented which claims that companies that have invested resources in creating software are entitled to reap an economic reward. It is not obvious that the reward should come through ownership. But be this as it may, the fact that it is illegal raises the important issue in this case. The central issue is that of honouring contracts, and the more basic principle of keeping promises. The consultant has, in effect, promised to keep the information learnt in the consultancies confidential. The problem is that it is difficult both to do this and to let Company A know that they are doing something illegal. One ought, generally, to keep promises. But why? The answer that one gives will depend on more general ethical theories. For the moment we will simplify things and consider two types of theories, consequentialist and deontological. Consequentialism versus deontology Consequentialist theories state that consequences are all important in determining what is the ethical or moral thing to do. The best known of these theories is utilitarianism, particularly in the form that was made famous by John Stuart Mill. Mill's well known view is that the morally right action is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Many varieties of utilitarianism have been developed to take account of various problems, but there is something attractive about the general idea. It does seem right that consequences are important in determining the rightness or wrongness of actions. On the other hand, some actions seem just wrong regardless of consequences. A group of sadists might get enormous pleasure from torturing a homeless and friendless alcoholic living on the streets. Even if their pleasure was greater than the suffering of the lone alcoholic, there is something obscene in saying that their action is morally right just because of the pleasure produced in those sadists. This sort of example leads many to the view that some things are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of consequences, or of the intentions of the person performing the action, and this is deontology (interpreted rather broadly). Immanuel Kant for example, believed that lying was always wrong, regardless of the consequences. Looking at invasion of personal privacy and unauthorised copying in this light, those activities, if wrong, they are wrong in themselves, regardless of consequences even where those consequences might be good. Clearly the theories outlined here have implications for the following case studies, as we will see shortly. Back to Mary Why should Mary worry about breaking a contract? On deontological grounds one might argue that to break a promise is to show lack of respect for the person to whom the promise was made, and as such is always morally wrong, regardless of whether or not the consequences are good. On a consequentialist view breaking promises is generally bad simply because the convention of having promises is a very useful one, and any promise breaking weakens that convention. However, in order to avoid a greater harm, in an individual case the right thing to do could be to break a promise. Perhaps in this example it is not too difficult to avoid breaking the promise of confidentiality. The consultant can just tell Company A that the particular GUI has been patented. She need not say how she knows this. But the situation may not be so simple, if she worked for Company B just a few weeks previously. It may be obvious that she learnt this while working for them, in which case she could be accused of breaking her promise to them. It may well be that by revealing anything at all she is breaking a promise to one of the companies. But if she does nothing, she is acting unprofessionally in not letting her client know that they are doing something illegal, and this too is unethical! Main questions In your reading and thinking for this topic, keep the following questions in mind: • Does ethics matter in the field of information and communication technology? • To whom does it (should it) matter? • What are two of the main ethical positions or theories? • How can these theories be applied in ICT ethics?