A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology

Ethics and Information Technology

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 199-226

  Wright, David ^a  

^a Trilateral Research and Consulting LLP: Trilateral Research Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Beneficence; Ethical impact assessment; Ethical issues; Ethical tools; Justice; Nonmaleficence; Respect for autonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960972586     PISSN: 13881957     EISSN: 15728439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10676-010-9242-6     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Recommendation 3/97: Anonymity on the Internet (WP 6), Adopted on 3 December 1997. http://ec. europa. eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/.
2. Article 29 Working Party, Opinion on data protection issues related to search engines, 00737/EN, WP 148, Adopted on 4 April 2008. http://ec. europa. eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2008_en. htm.
3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Beekman, V., et al. (2006). Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production, Final Report of the Ethical Bio-TA Tools project, LEI, The Hague, February. http://www. ethicaltools. info.
5. Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 3-12.
6. Boddy, Dr Ken, LOCOMOTION Ethical Study Report, Deliverable D 3. 3, Final Version, September 2004. http://cordis. europa. eu/search/index. cfm?fuseaction=proj. document& PJ_LANG=EN& PJ_RCN=6099060& pid=37& q=6AF6FCCDA9FE6C99B48B10861AFEBDDA& type=sim.
7. Brey, P. (2000). Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 125-129.
8. Clarke, R. (2007). Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of terms, Aug. http://www. rogerclarke. com/DV/Intro. html.
9. Dekker, M. (2004). The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, 2(2-3), 139-156.
10. European Commission, Ageing well in the Information Society, Action Plan on Information and Communication Technologies and Ageing, An i2010 Initiative, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2007) 332 final, Brussels, 14 June 2007.
11. European Commission, Communication on the precautionary principle, COM (2000)1, Brussels, 2 Feb 2000.
12. European Commission, Commission earmarks 1bn for investment in broadband-Frequently Asked Questions, Press release, MEMO/09/35, Brussels, 28 January 2009. http://europa. eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=MEMO/09/35.
13. European Commission, The European Research Area: New Perspectives, Green Paper, COM(2007) 161 final, Brussels, 4 Apr 2007.
14. European Commission, European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion: "To be part of the information society", Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2007) 694 final, Brussels, 8 Nov 2007.
15. European Council resolution on e-Inclusion, exploiting the opportunities of the information society for social inclusion, 2001/C 292/02, OJ 18 Oct 2001.
16. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), Opinion No. 20 on Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body, Adopted on 16 March 2005.
17. European Parliament and Council, Directive 2001/20/EC of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, OJ L 121/34, Brussels, 1 May 2001.
18. European Parliament and Council, Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), Official Journal L 108 of 24 April 2002.
19. European Parliament and Council, Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, 15 March 2006.
20. European Parliament and Council, Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L281/31 of 23 Nov 1995.
21. Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying values in technology: theory and practice. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 322-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Goldberg, I., Hill, A., & Shostack, A. (2001). Trust, ethics, and privacy. Boston University Law Review, 81, 101-116.
23. Helft, M. (2010). Critics say Google invades privacy with new service. The New York Times, 12 Feb. http://www. nytimes. com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google. html.
24. Hildebrant, M., & Gutwirth, S. (2008). Profiling the European Citizen. Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Hofmann, B. (2005). On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, 3(4), 277-295.
26. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 15408, Information technology-Security techniques-Evaluation criteria for IT security, First edition, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1999.
27. Johnson, B. (2009). Finland makes broadband access a legal right. The Guardian, 14 Oct. http://www. guardian. co. uk/technology/2009/oct/14/finland-broadband.
28. Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (Eds.). (2007). Regulatory impact assessment: towards better regulation?. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
29. Kuzma, J., et al. (2008). An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1197-1219.
30. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. London: Routledge.
31. Maiese, M. (2003) Principles of Justice and Fairness, Beyond Intractability. org, July. http://www. beyondintractability. org/essay/principles_of_justice/.
32. Marx, G. T. (1998). Ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14, 171-185.
33. Mepham, T. B. (2005). Bioethics: An introduction for the biosciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Moor, J. H. (1985). What is Computer Ethics? In T. W. Bynum (Ed.), Computers & Ethics (pp. 266-275). Oxford: Blackwell.
35. Moor, J. H. (1997). Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Computers and Society, 27, 27-32.
36. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111-119.
37. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 101-139.
38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Guidelines on the Transborder Flows of Personal Data, Paris, 23 Sept 1980. http://www. oecd. org/document/18/0, 3343, en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1, 00. html.
39. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research-a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134.
40. Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 543-558.
41. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.
42. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. http://sth. sagepub. com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/251.
43. Skorupinski, B., & Ott, K. (2002). Technology assessment and ethics. Poiesis & Praxis, 1, 95-122.
44. Sollie, P. (2007). Ethics, technology development and uncertainty: an outline for any future ethics of technology. Journal of Information Communications & Ethics in Society, 5(4), 293-306.
45. Sollie, P., & Düwell, M. (2009). Evaluating new technologies: Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Dordrecht: Springer.
46. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research Council, National Academy Press.
47. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Privacy Impact Assessment Guidelines: A framework to Manage Privacy Risks, Ottawa, 31 Aug 2002.
48. UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook, Version 2. 0, June 2009. http://www. ico. gov. uk/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/pia_handbook. aspx.
49. US National Research Council, Committee on Risk Perception and Communications, Improving Risk Communication, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1989. http://www. nap. edu/openbook. php?record_id=1189& page=R1.
50. van Gorp, A. (2009). Ethics in and during technological research; An addition to IT ethics and science ethics. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (pp. 35-50). Dordrecht: Springer.
51. Vedder, A., & Custers, B. (2009). Whose responsibility is it anyway? Dealing with the consequences of new technologies. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
52. Verbeek, P.-P. (2009). The moral relevance of technological artifacts. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies: methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments (pp. 63-79). Dordrecht: Springer.
53. von Schomberg, R. (2007). From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. Working document from the European Commission Services, Jan.