Connect with us

Science & Technology

Shared, automated… and electric?

Published

on

Authors: George Kamiya and Jacob Teter*

Automated driving and shared mobility could dramatically reshape road transport over the coming decades, with major implications for vehicle electrification and the broader electricity system. But can we assume that shared and/or autonomous vehicles of the future will be electric?

While electric vehicles (EVs) tend to be more expensive to purchase, they have lower fuel and maintenance costs than conventional vehicles. As shared and/or autonomous fleets would typically have heavier use patterns than with privately owned vehicles, the lower running costs could make EVs cheaper overall. But whether EVs could fulfil all the operational and technical requirements of shared and/or autonomous vehicles is less certain.

Building upon our look at emerging mobility technologies and services, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of electrifying shared mobility car fleets today and examine prospects for electrifying autonomous vehicles in the future. We explore how we might need to begin to re-think EV-related policies and investments to capitalise on synergies between the three revolutions – sharing, automation and electrification.

Shared and electric?

Car sharing services, which emerged in major cities in the early 2000s, allow members to borrow cars on a short-term basis. As car sharing fleets tend to have shorter trip distance profiles and higher utilisation rates compared to privately owned vehicles, EVs might be a good fit. In fact, several car sharing programs already operate all-electric fleets, including Moov’in.Paris, BlueSG (Singapore), Carma (San Francisco), car2go (Stuttgart, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris), and DriveNow (Copenhagen).

Most car sharing services operate in one of two ways: free-floating systems where cars can be parked anywhere, or hub/depot services where cars must be left in designated parking spots. In recent years, smartphones and mobile connectivity have made free-floating systems (and by extension one-way journeys) easier to access and pay for.

But free-floating systems using EVs face operational challenges as they rely on a limited number of public fast chargers. These challenges could be overcome through larger batteries, a better-designed charging network (e.g. faster chargers, more stations), or user incentives. In comparison, hub/depot car sharing systems can schedule slower and cheaper charging on their own chargers during vehicle downtimes.

Just as smartphones have changed the way car sharing services operate, they have fostered the rapid expansion of app-based ride-sourcing services provided by so-called transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber, Lyft, Didi Chuxing and GrabTaxi. The adoption of EVs in TNC fleets has been slow, despite the significant fuel and maintenance savings potential of EVs for full-time drivers working with TNCs. EV shares on the major ride-sourcing platforms remain below 1% with the exception of Didi at 1.3%, which already has over 400 000 EVs on its network. In California, EVs represented about 1% of vehicle share and trip miles in 2017.

There are also several barriers to EV adoption in taxis and ride-sourcing fleets. First, EVs are generally more expensive to purchase, and few EV models available today meet all the operational requirements of taxis and ride-sourcing services – notably long electric range, seat capacity and large trunk space.

Second, the combination of limited driving range, long charge times, and/or limited access to fast charging can pose challenges – searching for available chargers and long charging times could mean foregone revenues for drivers. Some taxi fleets are demonstrating the use of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) which could address some of these operational challenges.

Third, TNCs have limited ability to influence purchase decisions of their drivers, including in most jurisdictions where they cannot specify the use of particular vehicle models. But several TNCs are initiating programs to encourage usage of EVs on their platforms. Uber’s Clean Air Program in London provides financial incentives to drivers to switch to or drive more in EVs while Lyft ExpressDrive’s short-term lease options allow drivers to try EVs with little risk. Maven, GM’s car-sharing spin-off, offers a service of short-term rentals of the Chevrolet Bolt BEV to drivers working for TNCs and other shared platforms.

Shifting to EVs for car sharing and TNCs could lead to much larger per-vehicle reductions in GHG and local pollutant emissions compared to privately owned EVs. High utilisation and faster fleet turnover could also help to accelerate battery innovation cycles and more rapid adoption of increasingly efficient vehicles. In addition, given the importance of EV awareness and experience in influencing purchase decisions, the potential exposure of the benefits of electric drive to millions of potential car buyers could indirectly help to increase adoption of privately owned EVs.

Autonomous and electric?

Meanwhile, rapid advances in sensing technologies, connectivity, and AI are bringing highly automated vehicles – autonomous vehicles (AVs) – closer to market. Waymo recently launched their self-driving car service, Waymo One, while major automakers have announced plans to introduce AVs as early as 2020.

Just as with shared mobility and electrification, there are synergies between automation and electrification. With high utilisation rates, commercial fleet applications (where early adoption of AVs seems likely) tend to favour powertrains with lower operations and maintenance costs, including EVs. Well-coordinated fleets of electric AVs may be able to manage challenges around range, access to charging infrastructure, and charging time management. Automated driving technologies may also be easier to implement in EVs due to the greater number of drive-by-wire components.

However, higher utilisation rates of commercial AVs will also mean greater travel distances per day, requiring larger and more expensive battery packs or more frequent recharging (and downtime). AVs may also require significant power consumption to power on-board electronics, though the efficiency of these chips is improving rapidly, from 3‑5 kW in the first generation to less than 1 kW today.

While there is considerable debate regarding how quickly (and if ever) AVs will enter the mainstream, there are specific use cases where the feasibility and economics favour early adoption. For example, commercial applications where labour costs are high or where automation could enable higher vehicle utilisation (e.g. trucks, buses, taxis and ride-sourcing) have the largest potential for cost-cutting through automation.

Pilots and trials are underway for these applications in over 80 cities around the world, and nearly all are using some form of electrified vehicle. Notable examples include robotaxis from Waymo and nuTonomy/Lyft, autonomous electric shuttles across cities in Europe and North America, and autonomous electric buses in Asia. In California, EVs now account for around 70% of automated vehicle trial miles (mostly plug-in hybrids).

A growing number of trials of autonomous electric urban delivery vehicles are also being undertaken in a number of cities in China and the United States. While testing of autonomous freight trucks has been limited to date, early models and concepts from Einride, Ford, and Volvo  suggest a push towards all-electric. Tesla’s all-electric Semi is equipped with Enhanced Autopilot (equating to SAE Level 2 automation), which allows for automatic lane-keeping, forward collision warning, and automatic emergency braking.

Shared, autonomous and electric vehicles… and the grid

Governments, utilities, and other companies are actively working to build out charging infrastructure to support the growing number of EVs. Recent research (here, here, and here) shows how public charging infrastructure in particular will be critical in catalysing further market uptake of personally owned electric cars.

For fleets, their intensive and distinct use patterns imply greater (and different) needs for charging compared to private EVs. The availability and coverage of public and fast chargers could be a critical factor in how quickly these fleets become electric, and how business models evolve around shared and/or automated mobility.

EVs currently make up only about 1% of all passenger cars globally, but clustering effects in EV adoption at the local level, combined with uncoordinated charging, could cause problems for the distribution grid, and eventually require greater investments in power generation and transmission.

A combination of pricing incentives and digital technologies (including, eventually, coordinated discharging of EV batteries) could better coordinate fleet and private charging of EVs, minimising negative grid impacts, reducing CO2 emissions, and providing ancillary services. A transition to shared, automated, and electric vehicle (SAEV) fleets could also yield significant system-wide benefits for the grid, assuming the necessary digital technologies and incentive structures are in place.

Researchers are already looking at how different fleet compositions of SAEVs and charger availability could impact costs, operations, and grid impacts. For instance, fleet simulations in Austin, Texas (2016, 2018); Zurich, Switzerland (2016); Columbus, Ohio (2018); and Tokyo, Japan (2019) have investigated how varying fleet size, electric range, charger speed, and pooling could impact vehicle travel patterns and wait times. As the electric fleets modelled in these simulations begin to roll out in the real world, empirical data will lead to a far more robust and deep understanding of the opportunities and trade-offs of SAEVs.

In the near-term, appropriate data sharing between policy makers, utilities, and fleet operators could help anticipate needs for charging infrastructure as mobility service fleets electrify. Over the long-term, shifts towards SAEV fleets could improve the economics of charging infrastructure by increasing utilisation, promoting faster returns on investments and reducing reliance on subsidies and indirect revenue streams through grid services. Utilities could also explore rate structures that maximise grid benefits. Volumetric energy rates based on hourly wholesale pricing, for instance, may be a promising means of reducing peak loading and promoting charging at times when variable renewables are at their peak.

Policies and strategies to electrify a shared and/or automated future

National, regional, and municipal governments around the world are implementing a range of policies to encourage EV adoption and use. Country (and city)-specific objectives, constraints, and contexts will continue to shape the design of appropriate policy mixes for each jurisdiction.

Purchase incentives have generally been effective in encouraging the purchase of EVs, in turn helping to stimulate investment and bring down costs of battery and EV production. Mandates that car manufacturers produce minimum volumes of EVs (i.e. ZEV mandates) have complemented these by providing supply-side certainty.

But with growing adoption of shared (and potentially autonomous) mobility, the importance of policies designed to more directly incentivise the use of EVs over conventional vehicle travel will grow. These policies could include fuel taxes, zero-emission zones, road pricing, HOV and transit lane access, incentives for electric mobility services, or even restrictions on the use of conventional vehicles. Supporting the build-out of charging infrastructure will continue to be crucial to further EV adoption and use, including fast-charging infrastructure in densely populated metropolises and a robust charging network to support a transition to all-electric fleets. Cities where taxi and bus fleets are already making the transition to electric drive may be able to leverage fast-charging stations built for these fleets to spur a transition to electric shared mobility.

Researchers and policymakers are exploring alternative policy frameworks that could be effective in promoting electrification of shared and, eventually, autonomous fleets. California’s SB-1014 “California Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program: zero-emission vehicles” approved in September 2018 aims to establish annual emission reduction targets for TNCs per passenger-mile. London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone encourages for all road users, including fleets, to switch to EVs.

Given the uncertainty in how emerging trends could reshape mobility, policymakers might look to more flexible and forward-looking policies and strategies to get ready for different futures.

There may already be useful lessons learned on EV policy and infrastructure planning from cities with high rates of electrified taxis and buses such as Shenzhen, Amsterdam and Santiago. Electric bus depots or other centralised charging hubs could also serve mobility service fleets of the future, supplementing or even servicing the majority of charging needs. Such hubs could be located outside of cities, where property values (not to mention constraints on high voltage installations) are lower. But there may be systems-level repercussions to relying on such a strategy: it could lead to more traffic congestion and lower operational service efficiency from increased “deadheading”.

Dynamics are likely to differ between cities and geographies, driven by differences in power generation mixes and in mobility patterns. Simulations and case studies can begin to illustrate the levers behind such differences, and to anticipate the potential transformations that might occur if, and when, cars and buses become fully autonomous.

To help inform the design of flexible and forward-looking policies, research needs to continue to improve our understanding of a few key questions:

How do the charging needs of fleets differ from those of privately owned cars and in different geographic contexts? How can public charging infrastructure work to support the electrification of fleets and promote driving on electricity?

How might automated fleets change investment decisions around charging infrastructure, including the economics of wireless charging or battery swapping? What business models, data sharing, or policy is needed to balance charging infrastructure needs to support mobility service fleet operations and grid operations?

What are the energy and emissions implications of various market and regulatory designs of power markets? How can they facilitate the transition to renewable and low-carbon energy generation?

Electrifying vehicles can reduce some of the environmental impacts of mobility, notably local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But other adverse effects on society could be exacerbated by emerging mobility technologies and trends, including congestion, inequality, and mobility access issues. Policy makers will need to implement comprehensive policy packages that guard against these challenges. We will explore these and other critical issues in upcoming commentaries.

*Jacob Teter, Transport Analyst

IEA

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

East Asia2 hours ago

The role of CPC in supporting leadership schools in democratic countries

The Department of International Communication is officially under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China “CPC”, known by...

Development6 hours ago

Guterres Calls on Private Sector to Help Developing Countries with Post-Pandemic Recovery

In a special address at the virtual World Economic Forum Davos Agenda 2022 on Monday, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres...

NarendraModi NarendraModi
Development8 hours ago

Modi Urges All Countries to Embrace Sustainable Lifestyles

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India used his address to the Davos Agenda 2022 to call on all countries to...

Finance11 hours ago

China: $1.9 Trillion Boost and 88M Jobs by 2030 Possible with Nature-Positive Solutions

Nearly $9 trillion, two-thirds of China’s total Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is at risk of disruption from nature loss. Making...

Health & Wellness13 hours ago

UN-backed COVAX mechanism delivers its 1 billionth COVID-19 vaccine dose

With a 1.1 million jab delivery in Rwanda this weekend, the World Health Organization’s multilateral initiative to provide equal access...

Development15 hours ago

Xi Jinping Calls for Greater Global Cooperation to Tackle Common Challenges

President Xi Jinping of China called for stronger international cooperation in overcoming shared global challenges including defeating COVID-19, revitalizing the...

Style16 hours ago

Start your days with a better morning routine

Your morning sets the tone for the day to come. By starting the day with intent you’ll find yourself in...

Trending