Connect with us

Science & Technology

A Brave New World without Work

Published

on

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the soon-to-come widespread introduction of robots and artificial intelligence (AI)? Endless queues of people waiting to get unemployment benefits? Skynet drones ploughing the sky over burnt-out slums? Or the opposite: idleness and equality provided by the labour of mechanical slaves? In all likelihood the reality will be less flashy, though that doesn’t mean we should ignore the social consequences of the technological changes taking place before our very eyes.

Revolution on the March

The Fourth Industrial Revolution with its robotics, bio and nanotechnologies, 3D printing, Internet of things, genetics, and artificial intelligence is rapidly spreading across the world [1]. The coming technological changes will have direct consequences for a number of existing professions and promise in the very least to transform the labour market in developed countries.

The high speed of change (suffice it to say that 10 of the most popular professions of 2010 did not exist in 2004) makes it difficult to predict the impact on society. In this regard, the assessments of experts and international organizations range from optimistic to alarmist. However, even if we were to eliminate the most extreme case scenarios, we could still say with certainty that a fundamental restructuring of the global economy, comparable to the one that took place in the 18th–19th centuries during the First Industrial Revolution, awaits us in the foreseeable future.

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) Future of Jobs report, 65% of today’s primary school students will have hitherto unheard-of professions. McKinsey came to the same conclusion, highlighting in their report that at the current level of technological development, 30% of the functions of 60% of professions can be automated. M. Osborne and C. Frey of Oxford University give an even more pessimistic forecast. According to their research, 47% of jobs in the US risk being automated within 20 years.

Who will robots replace?

What professions are at risk? First at risk is, of course, unskilled labour. The Osborne and Frey study found clerks, data entry workers, librarians, machine operators, plumbers, sales specialists, and equipment adjusters among others to be those most vulnerable.

According to WEF, from 2015 to 2020, job reductions will have the greatest effect on office professions (4.91%) and the manufacturing sector (1.63%). Employment in areas such as design, entertainment, construction, and sales should also decline by 1%. In turn, the most significant growth in jobs is predictably expected in the field of computer technology (3.21%), architectural and engineering specialties (2.71%), and management (just under 1%).

Predictably, professions related to transport risk automation in the medium term. The development of self-driving vehicles could radically change both the passenger and freight traffic markets. In the US alone, 8.7 million people are employed in the long-distance freight traffic industry. If you take into account all of the business operations connected to trucking (motels, roadside cafes, etc.), the number increases to 15 million or about 10% of the country’s labour force. Reductions in passenger transport and the public transport sector are likely to be even more significant. It is also probable that self-guiding technologies will be introduced into sea freight traffic in the near future. The development of artificial intelligence should also bring down hard times on lawyers, teachers, miners, middle management, and journalists among others.

It can be said that on the whole, employment will gradually move from services to other sectors of the economy, many of which have yet to be created. The possibility is a confirmation of the revolutionary nature of the changes that are taking place rather than something unique. Before the First Industrial Revolution, over 70% of the population was occupied with agriculture, whereas nowadays the number hovers around a few percent in developed countries. The percentage of those employed in manufacturing continued to grow until the mid-twentieth century, though it has now fallen to 24% in the EU and 19% in the US (27% in Russia) as a result of the Digital Revolution. Meanwhile, although there are fewer workers, production volume continues to rise steadily. It would now appear to be time to automate services.

The Golden Age of Engineers and Psychiatrists?

Professions associated with intellectual work or direct personal contact with clients are least likely to suffer in the short term. According to the study from Oxford University, professions least susceptible to automation include various jobs in medicine and psychology, as well as coaches, social workers, programmers, engineers, representatives of higher management and creative professionals.

In other words, those whose work requires a creative approach and is not limited to the performance of predictable combinations will be best prepared to deal with the new reality. If we were to speak of engineers in this regard, it would have to be clarified that design engineers are generally safe, while operating engineers, on the contrary, are at risk.

Three key factors are keeping automation away from the creative professions. To successfully perform their tasks, artificial intelligence must possess intuition and an ability to manipulate material objects (touch) and make use of creative and social intelligence. Technology at its current level of development does not actually allow for the resolution of these problems. However, as strong AI continues to develop, the range of jobs available to it will invariably increase as well. It will expand the limits of automation that have already been achieved with existing technologies and will make it possible for computers to make managerial decisions and even, perhaps, engage in creative activity. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that in the medium or long term, machines might successfully replace writers and artists along with engineers and managers. Furthermore, precedents do exist for AI’s successfully composing literary texts.

Thus, it is quite conceivable that the majority of the labour force will find itself back in school in the foreseeable future. The problem, however, is that no one really knows what to study. It has been estimated, that as many as 85% of the professions that will be in demand in 2030 do not yet exist. Even in developed countries, the education systems have yet to adapt to the new reality.

What will become of our country and of us?

Today, most researchers have little doubt that developed countries will successfully adapt to the changes coming one way or another (which does not rule out the possibility of social tension and growth in income inequality). New technologies could help create additional jobs to replace those that have been lost, as it was not long ago following the rapid development of the Internet. It is assumed that the new professions will be more creative and better paid.

A new balance will gradually be established in the labour market. The nature of manufacturing will also change. The development of automation and 3D printing will make it possible to create efficient local production facilities focused on the specific needs of consumers. This will facilitate the return of a part of production from developing countries to developed (so-called reshoring).

In turn, the consequences of automation could be much more negative for countries of the third world. The percentage of non-skilled jobs in developing countries decreased by 8% between 1995 and 2012. Reshoring could significantly accelerate this process in the short term. Since the proportion of people engaged in low-skilled work in low and middle-income countries is much higher, the growth of unemployment would threaten to become a major global problem. The situation would be further aggravated by the underdevelopment of labour protection institutions in these countries.

It must be noted that risks of this sort are endemic to Russia as well. Despite the significantly higher level of education of its citizens in comparison to that in developing countries, the Russian economy could hardly be called high-tech. A significant part of the working population is engaged in routine low-skilled labour, and productivity remains low as well. At the present time, Russia lags significantly behind other developed countries in regards to this indicator (and behind the US by more than 100%), and according to some estimates falls below the world average. What’s more, factory jobs are not the only ones at stake – an army of many millions of bureaucrats and clerks is also under threat of redundancy as a result of digitalization.

Another disaster waiting to happen to the Russian economy is related to outdated industry and the decline of domestic engineering. At present, institutions of higher education produce mainly operational engineers trained to maintain tools and machines. What’s more, even the limited innovative potential of Russian engineers is not needed by Russian industry.

Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that in the near future Russia will launch a massive programme to introduce robotic automation and artificial intelligence. All the more since it fits in perfectly with the desire to modernize and digitalize the national economy repeatedly spoken of by the Russian leadership. Because of the lack of a strong trade union movement and the prevalence of hybrid and grey forms of employment, labour automation could lead to much more severe social consequences in Russia than in Western countries. Finally, it is entirely possible that the catch-me-if-you-can nature of such modernization will result in Russia introducing more primitive technologies than in more developed countries. Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine and RIAC Member Fyodor Lukyanov cleverly described a similar scenario in his article.

Saving the Rank and File

Ways to reduce the social consequences of labour automation have long been at the heart discussions surrounding the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the development of AI. The Robot Tax is one measure being considered. Microsoft Founder Bill Gates supports the idea and has proposed collecting income tax and social payments on robot labour to slow down the pace of automation. “Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, social security tax, all those things. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level,” he declared in an interview for the Internet publication Quartz. It is his opinion that the funds received from payments of this sort should be used by governments to create social security systems for those who have lost their jobs as a result of automation.

The first country to resort to this measure is South Korea, which introduced an indirect tax on robots in August 2017. The European Union also discussed the introduction of a similar tax, though the clause proposed by Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Representative Mady Delvaux was rejected by the European Parliament was rejected by the European Parliament because it could slow the development of innovations. At the same time, the parliament approved the resolution itself, which calls for granting robots the status of legal entities.

A universal basic income could also soften the effect of rising unemployment and inequality. Elon Musk supports the initiative together with numerous other businessmen and experts. At the same time, a lack of work to afford one the opportunity to fulfil one’s potential poses a significant social risk. Significant unemployment, even in the absence of poverty, can contribute to the marginalization of the population and the growth of crime – the first jobs to go are those of low-skilled employees, who are unlikely to spend all of their permanent free time engaged in yoga and self-improvement activities.

Possible ways of mitigating the consequences of the upcoming restructuring of the world economy include a change in the nature of employment. Technological changes and expanding access to the Internet allow more and more people to work remotely. Thus, some of those who lose their jobs will be able to find themselves a place in the new economy without having to change their place of residence.

Some believe that automation will increase and not reduce the total number of jobs by accelerating the pace of economic development over the long term. Amazon is one example of how automation has not resulted in staff reduction. While increasing the number of robots employed in its warehouses from 1,400 to 45,000, it has managed to retain the same number of jobs. It has also been noted that automation is becoming increasingly necessary due to a decrease in the working-age population (primarily in developed countries).

It should be noted that these measures are all limited in nature and hardly correspond to the scale of changes that stand to be swept in by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To avoid mass unemployment and social instability, governments must develop comprehensive short-term strategies for adapting the population to the new reality. It is very likely that new programs will be needed to retrain citizens en masse for new professions.

Russia is no exception here; on the contrary, it is of vital importance that our country reform its education system in the near future, especially as regards technical education. It is equally important to develop targeted support programs for those parts of the population that are most vulnerable to automation and digitalization. Moreover, it would seem advisable to make use of existing experience to mitigate the social consequences of factory closures in Russian single-industry towns. If we continue to move as sluggishly as we are moving at present, we risk turning into a kind of reserve for yesterday’s technologies with a population becoming ever more rapidly marginalized.

First published in our partner RIAC

[1] Marsh, P. The New Industrial Revolution. Consumers, Globalization, and the End of Mass Production. M.: Gaidar Institute Press, 2015.

Science & Technology

Ethical aspects relating to cyberspace: Self-regulation and codes of conduct

Published

on

Virtual interaction processes must be controlled in one way or another. But how, within what limits and, above all, on the basis of what principles? The proponents of the official viewpoint – supported by the strength of state structures – argue that since the Internet has a significant and not always positive impact not only on its users, but also on society as a whole, all areas of virtual interaction need to be clearly regulated through the enactment of appropriate legislation.

In practice, however, the various attempts to legislate on virtual communication face great difficulties due to the imperfection of modern information law. Moreover, considering that the Internet community is based on an internal “anarchist” ideology, it shows significant resistance to government regulations, believing that in a cross-border environment – which is the global network – the only effective regulator can be the voluntarily and consciously accepted intranet ethics based on the awareness of the individual person’s moral responsibility for what happens in cyberspace.

At the same time, the significance of moral self-regulation lies not only in the fact that it makes it possible to control the areas that are insufficiently covered, but also in other regulatory provisions at political, legal, technical or economic levels. It is up to ethics to check the meaning, lawfulness and legitimacy of the remaining regulatory means. The legal provisions themselves, supported by the force of state influence, are developed or – at least, ideally – should be implemented on the basis of moral rules. It should be noted that, although compliance with law provisions is regarded as the minimum requirement of morality, in reality this is not always the case – at least until an “ideal” legislation is devised that does not contradict morality in any way. Therefore, an ethical justification and an equal scrutiny of legislative and disciplinary acts in relation to both IT and computer technology are necessary.

In accordance with the deontological approach to justifying web ethics, the ethical foundation of information law is based on the human rights of information. Although these rights are enshrined in various national and international legal instruments, in practice their protection is often not guaranteed by anyone. This enables several state structures to introduce various restrictions on information, justifying them with noble aims such as the need to implement the concept of national security.

It should be stressed that information legislation (like any other in general) is of a conventional nature, i.e. it is a sort of temporary compromise reached by the representatives of the various social groups. Therefore, there are no unshakable principles in this sphere: legality and illegality are defined by a dynamic balance between the desire for freedom of information, on the one hand, and the attempts at restricting this freedom in one way or another.

Therefore, several subjects have extremely contradictory requirements with regard to modern information law, which are not so easy to reconcile. Information law should simultaneously protect the right to free reception of information and the right to information security, as well as ensure privacy and prevent cybercrime. It should also promote again the public accessibility of the information created, and protect copyright – even if this impinges on the universal principle of knowledge sharing.

The principle of a reasonable balance of these often diametrically opposed aspirations, with unconditional respect for fundamental human rights, should be the basis of the international information law system.

Various national and international public organisations, professionals and voluntary users’ associations define their own operation principles in a virtual environment. These principles are very often formalised in codes of conduct, aimed at minimising the potentially dangerous moral and social consequences of the use of information technologies and thus at achieving a certain degree of web community’s autonomy, at least when it comes to purely internal problematic issues. The names of these codes do not always hint at ethics, but this does not change their essence. After all, they have not the status of law provisions, which means that they cannot serve as a basis for imposing disciplinary, administrative or any other liability measures on offenders. They are therefore enforced by the community members who have adopted them solely with goodwill, as a result of free expression based on recognition and sharing of the values and rules enshrined in them. These codes therefore act as one of the moral self-regulating mechanisms of the web community.

The cyberspace codes of ethics provide the basic moral guidelines that should guide information activities. They specify the principles of general theoretical ethics and are reflected in a virtual environment. They contain criteria enabling to recognise a given act as ethical or unethical. They finally provide specific recommendations on how to behave in certain situations. The rules enshrined in the codes of ethics under the form of provisions, authorisations, bans, etc., represent in many respects the formalisation and systematisation of unwritten rules and requirements that have developed spontaneously in the process of virtual interaction over the last thirty years of the Internet.

Conversely, the provisions of codes of ethics must be thoroughly considered and judged – by their very nature, code of ethics are conventional and hence they are always the result of a mutual agreement of the relevant members of a given social group – as otherwise they are simply reduced to a formal and sectorial statement, divorced from life and not rule-bound.

Despite their multidirectionality due to the variety of net functional abilities and the heterogeneity of its audience, a comparison of the most significant codes of ethics on the Internet shows a number of common principles. Apparently, these principles are in one way or another shared by all the Internet community members. This means that they underpin the ethos of cyberspace. They include the principle of accessibility, confidentiality and quality of information; the principle of inviolability of intellectual property; the principle of no harm, and the principle of limiting the excessive use of net resources. As can be seen, this list echoes the four deontological principles of information ethics (“PAPA: Privacy, Accuracy, Property and Accessibility”) formulated by Richard Mason in his article Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. (“MIS Quarterly”, March 1986).

The presence of a very well-written code of ethics cannot obviously ensure that all group members will act in accordance with it, because – for a person – the most reliable guarantees against unethical behaviour are his/her conscience and duties, which are not always respected. The importance of codes should therefore not be overestimated: the principles and actual morals proclaimed by codes may diverge decisively from one another. The codes of ethics, however, perform a number of extremely important functions on the Internet: firstly, they can induce Internet users to moral reflection by instilling the idea of the need to evaluate their actions accordingly (in this case, it is not so much a ready-made code that is useful, but the very experience of its development and discussion). Secondly, they can form a healthy public in a virtual environment, and also provide it with uniform and reasonable criteria for moral evaluation. Thirdly they can  become the basis for the future creation of international information law, adapted to the realities of the electronic age.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Ethical aspects relating to cyberspace: Behaviours and fake news

Published

on

It is customary to define etiquette as a set of rules of conduct governing the external expressions of human relations. Etiquette helps to preserve the integrity of society. It creates and maintains a certain social order, coordinates the joint actions of individuals and helps to overcome possible communication tensions. In this capacity, etiquette is functionally linked to morality: ultimately, etiquette is a form of practical implementation of moral principles.

Observing the rules of etiquette makes it possible to show goodwill and attention to others and express respect for them, and to make communication easy and pleasant. Despite all the similarities existing between morality and etiquette, they cannot be considered the same: the regulating function of etiquette is of a rather subordinate nature and its main function – as noted by many researchers – is integrative and differentiating. Etiquette ensures integration within a social group by giving its members special distinctive characteristics – the way they greet each other, speak and cautiously gain confidence in each other, etc. – thus enabling this group to create a sense of belonging. This allows the group to create new behaviours in order to distinguish itself from others. At the same time, however – as in real life – etiquette on the Internet (“netiquette”) not only unites people, but also separates them, by emphasising their differences in status (gender, age, class, social status, national and religious affiliation, etc.).

As a whole, the functions of integration/differentiation/distinction enable an individual to streamline relations both within his or her reference group and outside it, i.e. with “outsiders”.

There is no universal “netiquette”’, which is uniform for everyone in modern society: each socio-demographic and/or socio-professional group develop/develops its own rules of decency, along with the generally accepted ones, which serve as an integral element of its own sub-culture, understood not in a derogatory sense but as a variant/variety of minority culture or localised in a cyberspace environment. It is therefore not surprising that special rules of etiquette are formed on the Internet. In the strict sense of the word, netiquette is not etiquette, since it does not (and cannot) perform the main function of traditional etiquette: its function of differentiation – i.e. of determining the individual’s place in social hierarchy – is merely virtual and does not fundamentally entail the nature of status, since it lacks human contact or bodily contact, as you might well call it. Consequently, the communication and integration function of “netiquette” clearly prevails.

This function manifests itself in two ways. Firstly, it is one of the tools for building the collective identity of the members of a particular virtual community: by developing its own unique rules of behaviour, this virtual society/group is aware of itself as a whole and represents itself to others. Secondly, “netiquette” promotes the individual socio-cultural identification: the knowledge and implementation of its rules enable an individual to confirm his or her belonging to a particular community and to prove that it is “his or her” and not everyone else’s, as the rules of that particular “netiquette” are not written in any Archbishop John della Casa’s Galateo: or, the Rules of Polite Behaviour.

It is not by chance that a fairly widespread (and more severe) penalty for infringing the rules of a specific group “netiquette” is a sort of expulsion from virtual society, i.e. the disconnection of the offender from a given Internet resource. Therefore, “netiquette” also acts as a mechanism of socialisation and marginalisation at the same time.

Unlike in traditional communities, the possibility of group influence on an individual (e.g. through public opinion) on the Internet is limited. The anonymity of virtual communication makes it easy to avoid social pressure, and therefore the only effective method of influence in a virtual environment is the voluntary inclusion of a person in the social system, his/her internalisation of group values and rules. This implies the conscious acceptance of some obligations, mainly moral ones – no matter whether shared or not by the external society – by each participant in virtual interaction. From this viewpoint, “netiquette” rules can be seen as a guideline demonstrating the standard of correct behaviour in cyberspace. Therefore, these rules are of a marked ethical nature.

An analysis of the various versions of the Internet etiquette shows that the rules do not generally differ much from the traditional ones: they imply respect for communication partners and are based on the “golden rule” of group morality. At the same time, besides universal ethical standards, equally applicable to both real and virtual communication, “netiquette” also includes a number of specific rules due to the specificities of the communication channel. For instance, it is not advisable to write messages in capital letters, which is equivalent to shouting, as capital letters are bad for the sense of sight and the sense of hearing. It is also not advisable to send e-mail attachments without warning; to use coarse language; to send unexpected notifications; to send e-mails with an empty subject line; to distribute spam; to send unsolicited mail; to forward advertisements, etc.

It can be assumed, however, that, with the further development of information technology, the approach to virtual communication will align with the usual forms of interaction, until “netiquette” will be absorbed into traditional etiquette.

As is well known, most journalistic codes of ethics usually proclaim freedom of speech as the highest moral value: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This freedom finds its maximum expression on the Internet: specialised institutions lose their monopoly on the generation of information contained therein and any user – for a minimal cost – can design and make any message publicly available without subjecting it to further changes.

The specificity of the Internet, however, makes it easier to show fake, anti-social and simply illegal material, because the Internet is a type of media in which it is easier to hide, change or falsify the identity of the author of a statement. On the Internet, in fact, it is never possible to say with certainty who actually is the author of a message (unless the information is protected by special cryptographic means), and the text published on the Internet can at any time be modified beyond recognition, moved to another server or simply destroyed.

The situation is worsened by the fact that there are no institutional or professional criteria for the quality and reliability of information on the Internet, except in the cases where relevant news is accompanied by reliability indicators outside the web (e.g. the reputation of the author or of the institution that has its own website, etc.). Therefore, mass communication on the Internet is totally anonymous and however binding.

In full accordance with the postulates of web ideology, the attempts to solve the problem of the dissemination of questionable information on the Internet (“fake news”) by creating specialised laws and by also introducing censorship, are resolutely opposed by members of the net community and usually end in failure. It should be borne in mind that it is impossible to provide a universal definition of what “reprehensible information” means, considering the various countries’ cultural, national and religious characteristics. Therefore, the development of a unified information policy in this area is hardly possible.

As an acceptable alternative to censorship and other legislative restrictions, it is proposed to consider filtering materials published on the web by using an algorithm for evaluating electronic documents. The advantage of this approach is that it gives users freedom of choice, thus enabling them to decide what kind of information they wish to receive. Admittedly, for this choice to be truly conscious and responsible, it is necessary to have a fully-fledged value system (i.e. the ability to discern), both for those who make evaluations and give ratings and for those who are guided by third parties, since the basis of any evaluation and rating is the identification of value – in this case the information disseminated via the Internet. The rating evaluation methodology (assessment of reliability) cannot therefore be effective without enhancing the information culture of society as a whole. (5. continued)

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Ethical aspects relating to cyberspace: Copyright and privacy

Published

on

In recent years, there has been a trend in cyberspace ethics towards the emergence of intra-net mechanisms and self-regulatory systems. In particular, in many European countries, information service providers have started to introduce voluntary self-limitation. For instance, in the UK, there is an independent Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org), whose representatives develop rating systems for Internet resources, by maintaining constant monitoring to collect information that infringes moral and legal standards on websites, and – where necessary – block access to them.

A solution to the problem of the quality of information provided on the Internet can probably come from traditional media, which in recent years have been increasingly committed to acquiring an electronic version of their print or radio and television editions. Moreover, exclusively online newspapers and magazines have already emerged which, thanks to their serious and cautious approach, have won the online public’s trust. These publications can play an extremely important role through widely applied survey protocols; evaluation of electronic publications; maintenance of the virtual media’s reputation; and supervision of the implementation of the basic rules and principles of professional journalistic ethics on the Internet.

Furthermore, the ethical conflict between the author (owner) of an information product and the Internet public has to be considered, i.e. the analysis of the contradiction between the desire for public accessibility of newly created information and the need to protect copyright.

The emergence of the “copyright” concept (dating back almost three hundred years: the first law on the subject is The Statute of Queen Anne, which was enacted in 1709 and came into force on April 10, 1710) is due to the need to strike a balance between the interests of the creators of original works and societal needs. Therefore, it is based on two non-coincidental and sometimes even contradictory moral principles: disposing of the fruits of labour is a natural matter, on the other hand there is the principle of universal free access to knowledge, which ensures the progress of science and art and encourages the free use of any information and ideas without restrictions.

Modern communication technologies create almost unlimited possibilities for personal possession and reproduction of information and this greatly complicates copyright protection. As a result, previous international laws and agreements on the protection of intellectual property are inadequate and traditional ideas on copyright need to be revised.

How should current legislation be changed to meet modern realities? There are two conceptual approaches to solve this problem. The generally accepted trend to improve national and international information law rules is to broaden the scope of copyright and extend it to electronic types of information.

At the same time, it should be emphasised that copyright arises from the fact of creating a work, and does not depend on the nature of the medium. Hence the problem lies in the need for proper interpretation of the legislation in force and in the implementation of the existing rules to the new conditions.

However, the opposite viewpoint – whereby compliance with copyright on the Internet slows down the web development and interferes with its active content – is increasingly expressed. The most radical proponents of this view argue that – since the free exchange of knowledge and ideas is the basis of information ethics – copyright categories are in principle not applicable to it, and therefore the Internet should be perceived as a public information space in which the value of a specific copyright text is levelled off. These ideas have found their most complete embodiment in the hackers’ ethical principles. Bear in mind that the word “hacker” is meant in its original and positive meaning: a person who uses his/her computer skills to explore the details of programmable systems and experiments with how to extend their use to everyone. The derogatory use that some people make of the word does not reflect and pertains to its full morality.

In line with this viewpoint, it is proposed to limit or even remove some rules from the conceptual foundations of copyright, e.g. to authorise the fair and proper use of original works and ultimately relinquish the idea of intellectual property altogether.

It is clear that the origins of this approach should be sought in the ideas of freedom on the net, based on the principle that information should not be encumbered by legal and/or authorization schemes. In fact, even those who support the abolition of intellectual property are not ready to completely relinquish the rights to their works and remove their names from titles and, especially, from revenues and fees. The origins of this approach are to be found within the net and this system of opinions seems legitimate in both directions.

It is therefore clear that the primary task in formulating modern information legislation is to maintain a balance between the interests of software producers and information resources on the one hand, and the interests of their consumers on the other. Otherwise, the development of new communication technologies will contribute to deepening information inequality in modern society, and to further dividing society between the well informed and the less informed.

A further right – the right to privacy – is one of the most fundamental rights: it reflects the natural human need for privacy, confidentiality and autonomy, as well as for the protection of one’s own “personal sphere” from outside intrusion, and the ability to make decisions without being spied on and to remain oneself and maintain one’s own individuality.

It is no coincidence that in all international documents declaring human rights and freedoms, as well as in all codes of ethics related to the sphere of information, privacy is proclaimed as a fundamental moral value, which constitutes the foundation of human freedom and security, and therefore requires respect and protection. It is interesting to note that, unlike other human rights formulated in the 18th century, the right to the inviolability of private life has only recently received protection and be recognized in legislation, i.e. in the mid-20th century. This can be explained precisely by the development of information and communication technologies, under the influence of which intrusion into the individual person’s private sphere has become much easier.

In particular, despite the declared anonymity of Internet surfing, there are technologies that allow to collect information on the users’ behaviours on the web. The collection of such information cannot be considered reprehensible, but only if some rather strict requirements and conditions are met. Information must be obtained in good faith, with the knowledge and consent of the data subject (the person to whom the information relates). It must be collected for well-defined purposes that do not infringe the law and be used in strict compliance with the stated purposes. It must be protected from unauthorised access and not be redundant or associated with personally identifiable data about the user without his or her permission.

In practice, however, these rules are not always complied with. This requires appropriate solutions to be found, thus enabling the Internet users’ privacy to be effectively protected from unauthorised interference by both governmental and commercial agencies.

An important role in ensuring the Internet users’ privacy is played by the creation of certain codes of ethics in the field of protection – the so-called privacy policy. The privacy policy is an official statement on the terms of use of personal data requested from the Internet users. As a rule, it is published on the home page of the website and includes a detailed description of the purpose for the collection of information and practices: I talked about it – expressing many doubts – in one of my previous articles.

The reason for my doubts is very simple: whoever is interested in spying on third parties pays the creator of the appropriate software more than the international or governmental organization, or the single private agency, which envisages very low fees for the creator of software that should protect citizens’ privacy. Those who are better paid have obviously more incentives to develop spy-software than the technician with a permanent job and a fixed salary. This is the immoral logic of capitalism.  

Therefore, the terms of the privacy policy also contain guarantees regarding the protection of personal data, which the website administration undertakes. In the West, the presence and adhesion of companies that provide for privacy policies is an integral part of the e-business ethos, and is clearly evidenced by international public bodies through which certifications of the Internet resources are created, thus informing users of the extent to which their personal data are protected when working with websites. Such examples clearly show that self-regulation is extremely effective on the Internet – as long as it lasts, for the above stated reasons. Therefore, hopefully Internet users will realise the importance of privacy as a social and moral value (6. end)

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Reports45 seconds ago

Green Infrastructure Development Key to Boost Recovery Along the BRI

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) presents a significant opportunity to build out low-carbon infrastructure in emerging and developing economies...

Crypto Insights2 hours ago

The Crypto Regulation: Obscure Classification Flusters Regulators as Crypto Expands into Derivatives Markets

Crypto regulation has long been a topic of debate in policymaking circles. As the white-hot market continues to soar in...

Middle East4 hours ago

China-US and the Iran nuclear deal

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian met with  Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on Friday, January 14, 2022 in the...

Eastern Europe7 hours ago

Rebuilding of Karabakh: Results of 2021

The restoration work in Karabakh entered the active phase in 2021 as several projects had been completed and the foundations...

Reports10 hours ago

COVID-19 pandemic stalls global economic recovery

The UN’s key report on the global economy, released on Thursday, shows that the rapid spread of the Omicron COVID-19...

Health & Wellness13 hours ago

WHO recommends two new drugs to treat patients with COVID-19 

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday reccommended two new drugs to treat patients with COVID-19, one for patients with critical disease, and another deemed...

Finance14 hours ago

Vietnam’s economic growth is expected to accelerate to 5.5% in 2022

Vietnam’s economic recovery is likely to accelerate in 2022 as GDP growth is expected to rise to 5.5% from 2.6%...

Trending