Slides

James

Created: 2019-04-04 Thu 11:07

ACM CODE and Professional Responsibility

Issues

  • Professional
  • Legal
  • Moral

Harms

  • ~117 Million unique with info like:
    • Passport Numbers (Unencrypted and Encrypted)
    • 8.6 million Credit Card Numbers (In Some Cases) (Encrypted according to company)
    • Reservation and Loyalty Info
    • SQL Injection Attack (2014)

Professional

To minimize the possibility of indirectly or unintentionally harming others, computing professionals should follow generally accepted best practices unless there is a compelling ethical reason to do otherwise. Additionally, the consequences of data aggregation and emergent properties of systems should be carefully analyzed.

Professional: Security

2.9 Design and implement systems that are robustly and usably secure.

Breaches of computer security cause harm. Robust security should be a primary consideration when designing and implementing systems. Computing professionals should perform due diligence to ensure the system functions as intended, and take appropriate action to secure resources against accidental and intentional misuse, modification, and denial of service. As threats can arise and change after a system is deployed, computing professionals should integrate mitigation techniques and policies, such as monitoring, patching, and vulnerability reporting. Computing professionals should also take steps to ensure parties affected by data breaches are notified in a timely and clear manner, providing appropriate guidance and remediation.

Security

Computing professionals are in a position of trust, and therefore have aspecial responsibility to provide objective, credible evaluations and testimony to employers, employees, clients, users, and the public. Computing professionals should strive to be perceptive, thorough, and objective when evaluating, recommending, and presenting system descriptions and alternatives. Extraordinary care should be taken to identify and mitigate potential risks in machine learning systems. A system for which future risks cannot be reliably predicted requires frequent reassessment of risk as the system evolves in use, or it should not be deployed. Any issues that might result in major risk must be reported to appropriate parties.

Bobby Tables

exploits_of_a_mom.png

Security Auditing and Disclosure

Who should have known?

  • There was evidence of a breach as early as 2014
  • When Marriott bought Starwood, should there have been some kind of security audit?

Legal Negligence

If managers take actions that leave their information systems unreasonably insecure or if they fail to take actions to make their information systems reasonably secure and as a result someone suffers damages when those systems are penetrated, the managers and their organization may be sued. (Gardiner)

Reasonable Person

Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B less than PL.

ICTs and Disruption

  • logical universality
  • Mediate Human Activities
  • Thereby altering them
  • Cyberpractices

I understand a social practice as any recurrent pattern of activity in which people intentionally cooperate in the pursuit of some end or set of goods

Informational Enrichment

  • Policy Vacuum
  • Conceptual Muddles
  • Moral Opacity

Conceptual Muddles

New digital technology creates a conceptual muddle when it changes a social practice or activity in such a way that some concept or set of concepts connected with the practice or activity becomes unclear or contentious for members of the practice.

Policy Vacuums

  • some regular activity or area of social practice is of moral concern
  • standards of appropriate behavior and technological design for that activity or practice are non-existent, outdated, or poorly conceived

Moral Opacity

insofar as the people involved are unaware of its morally problematic features, either because they lack knowledge of the technology itself or because they fail to notice the values embedded in the ICT design or use.

Types of Ethics

  • Ethics of Character
    • aretaic
  • Ethics of Conduct
    • deontic
  • Right V. Good

Socially Practical Conscience formation

  • Not just Personal
  • realistic social consequences
  • Dialogically responsible

Privacy

Privacy: Warren and Brandeis

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tort and Information Privacy

(1) information about oneself, (2) situations in which others could acquire information about oneself, and (3) technology that can be used to generate, process or disseminate information about oneself.

---SEP, Privacy and Information Technology-

Philosophy and Privacy

  • Reductionist
    • rights
    • property rights
    • security
    • intimacy
    • dignity
  • Intrinsic Value of Privacy
  • Non-Essentialist
  • Epistemic

Conditions vs Normative

Moral Reasons

  • Prevention of Harm
  • Informational Inequality
  • Informational Discrimination
  • Moral Autonomy

What is it

  1. Informational control?

2. Liberty, Autonomy, Personality

  • We must therefore conclude that the rights, so protected, whatever their exact nature, are not rights arising from contract or from special trust, but are rights as against the world; and, as above stated, the principle which has been applied to protect these rights is in reality not the principle of private property, unless that word be used in an extended and unusual sense. The principle which protects personal writings and any other productions of the intellect of or the emotions, is the right to privacy, and the law has no new principle to formulate when it extends this protection to the personal appearance, sayings, acts, and to personal relation, domestic or otherwise.

Moor on Privacy

A citizen or person C enjoys normative privacy with respect to personal information I in situation S to the extent that

  • authorized access to I in S is restricted to specified parties for specified purposes,
    • according to publicly stated rules of access,
    • exceptions to which must be impartially justified by a comparative risk assessment and codified as public adjustment rules, such that
  • C enjoys as much control over access as possible.

Persuasive Technology and The Good Life

Captology

Captology is the study of computers as persuasive technologies. This includes the design, research, ethics and analysis of interactive computing products (computers, mobile phones, websites, wireless technologies, mobile applications, video games, etc.) created for the purpose of changing people’s attitudes or behaviors. BJ Fogg derived the term captology in 1996 from an acronym: Computers As Persuasive Technologies = CAPT.

— Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab

Persuasion v. Manipulation

  • Bypassing Reason
  • Trickery
  • Pressure

Persuasion

  • Positive Reputation of Computers
  • Persistence
  • Affective

Intentions

Methods

  • deception and coercion (always wrong?)
  • operant conditioning
  • surveillance

Outcomes

  • intended
  • unintended

Flourishing and Virtue

  • Self-Directed realization of distinctively human capacities.
    • Emotional, Social, Intellectual

List Theories

  • Finnis V. Nussbaum
  • Cyber: life, health, security, knowledge, opportunity, abilities, happiness, peace, and most of all, freedom

What is a virtue

  • A habit to have appropriate feelings (actions)
  • Intermediate between excess and deficiency
  • Moral Exemplars ( phronimos, chun-tzu, boddhisatva)

Cardinal Virtues

  • Temperance
  • Courage
  • Justice
  • Prudence

Shannon Vallor

No ethical framework can cut through the general constraints of technosocial opacity. The contingencies that obscure a clear vision of even the next few decades of technological and scientific development are simply far too numerous to resolve— in fact, given accelerating physical, geopolitical, and cultural changes in our present environment, these contingencies and their obscuring effects are likely to multiply rather than diminish. What this book offers is not an ethical solution to technosocial opacity, but an ethical strategy for cultivating the type of moral character that can aid us in coping, and even flourishing, under such chal­lenging conditions.

Aristotelian and Technomoral

Vallor Aristotle definitions
Self-Control Temperance (yi) desire the goods of human flourishing
Honesty aletheia a respect for truth
Humility Pride/Honor (Hsiao) a recognition of our limits
Upholding Rightness Justice fair and equitable distribution
    of the benefits and risks of ICTs
Courage Courage Intelligent Fear and Hope

More Technomoral Virtues

  • Empathy (jen/friendship)
  • Care: Loving Service to Others
  • Civility: Making Common Cause (li)
  • Flexibility: Skillful Adaptation to Change
  • Perspective: Holding on to th Moral Whole
  • Magnanimity: Moral Leadership and Nobility of Spirit
  • Techno-Moral Wisdom (Phronesis, Chih)

Disadvantages

  • Particularism
  • Change

The Human Good

  • The Final End
  • Human Flourishing

Flourishing

  • Basic Values
  • Capabilities

Weighing Ends in Deliberation

  • Central to Flourishing
  • Interpretation and Individuality

Virtue

  • temperance
  • courage
  • justice
  • prudence

Consequentialism

  • describable consequences brought about by the target of moral evaluation
  • specification of those values that make the consequences relevant for moral consideration

Evaluating Policies

  • CBA
  • Risk Analysis
  • Pleasure and Pain

Malevolence Counts

Harm

The primary mischief of an act can be divided into •the original mischief: what comes to any person P1 who is a sufferer in the first instance and on his own account; the person, for instance, who is beaten, robbed, or murdered; and •the derivative mischief: what comes to any person P2 because—and only because—of primary mischief suffered by P1.

Secondary Mischief

The secondary mischief often involves two strands, pain and danger. The pain it produces is a pain of anxiety, a pain based on the •fear of suffering mischiefs or inconveniences that it is the nature of the primary mischief to produce. We can give it the one-word label alarm. The danger is the •chance of suffering those mischiefs or inconveniences. Danger is nothing but the chance of pain, which is the same as the chance of loss of pleasure.

Panopticon

Presidio-modelo2.jpeg

Panopticism

“the most effectual means of applying the force of moral motives, in a direction tending to strengthen the union between his interest and the humane branch of his duty; by bringing to light, and thus exposing to the censure of the law and of public opinion … every instance of contravention”

CBA/Risk Analysis

  • Pro-Con Fallacy
  • Confirmation Bias
  • Narrow Consequences

The Right and Proper

"the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question [is] the right and proper, and the only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action"

  • aggregative

The Principle

an action or measure of government may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility, or, for shortness sake, to utility, (meaning with respect to the community at large) when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it

Stakeholders

Second, for each alternative, (a) describe the different consequences of that alternative for the "community," which is everyone affected, or each of the stakeholders, (b) take the perspective of each stakeholder and ask how the consequences affect his or her interests, calculating the net balance of pleasure over pain for that stakeholder; then (c) aggregate the results for the individual stakeholders to obtain the net balance of pleasure over pain for the whole community; this result is the social utility of that alternative

Proxies for Value: Maximand

  • Monetary
  • How much effort
  • Perfectionist
  • Non-canonical
    • Capabilities (Sen)
    • Domination (Pettit)

Impartiality

  • Special Relationships and Duties
  • Nothing Supererogatory
  • Distributive Indifference

Justice

  • Institutions
  • No dignity,

Deontology

Universal Law Formula

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

Contradictions

  • system collapse
    • Perfect duties
  • Necessary frustration of the rational pursuit of life goals
    • Imperfect duties

Biases

  • Cultural
  • Unconscious

Humanity Formula

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means

Moral Autonomy

  • Respect Freedom
  • Could they consent?

[G]ood arguments in most problem-solving or truth-seeking domains are those that prove generally persuasive under conditions that foster severe testing of assumptions and inferences against counterarguments, objections, consideration of all relevant information, and the like.

Systematic Union of Rational beings

Act only according to those policies that all rational beings could agree to as legislators making laws for a kingdom of ends.

Publicity

All actions relating to the right of other human beings are wrong if their maxim is incompatible with publicity. (Toward Perpetual Peace)

Conscience

  • Answerability to Interpersonal Demands
  • "Representative Person"
  • "If we are not to undermine autonomy, then when we test a behavior or social practice for its moral acceptability, we must take its longer-range consequences for the exercise of autonomy into account."

Scanlon

An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behavior that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, uncoerced, general agreement

Habermas

a moral norm is valid when the foreseeable consequences and side-effects of its general observance for the interests and value-orientations of each individual could be jointly accepted by all concerned without coercion in a rational discourse

Principle of Moral Regard

One may act only in ways that show due moral regard for human beings as members of society, that is: respect for the agency of human beings as autonomous, and concern for the needs of dependent human beings.

WOW

All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, character inventories, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and. any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard.

Unconscionability

A defense against the enforcement of a contract or portion of a contract. If a contract is unfair or oppressive to one party in a way that suggests abuses during its formation, a court may find it unconscionable and refuse to enforce it. A contract is most likely to be found unconscionable if both unfair bargaining and unfair substantive terms are shown. An absence of meaningful choice by the disadvantaged party is often used to prove unfair bargaining.

Problems and Algorithms

Floridi et al characterize the problems that beset AI thusly:

Epistemic Concerns

  • Inconclusive Evidence
    • It's Statistsics
  • Inscrutable Evidence
    • The Algorithms are Opaque
  • Misguided Evidence
    • Garbage In, Garbage Out

Normative Concerns

  • Unfair Outcomes
  • Transformative Effects

Unfair and Unjust Outcomes

  • Do unintelligible ML algorithms make consent impossible?
  • Do they make democratic decisions with regard to their use impossible?

Metrics for Outcomes

  • We saw last class that there are a variety of ways to judge fairness?
  • Can algorithms model the circumstances of violent crimes?
  • Conversion from human behavior to numbers :(
  • There are choices about what to measure. DEEP DIFFICULT DECISIONS
  • Numbers are dangerous when they're fetishized
    • Unemployment
    • Economic Growth

The Fog of War

The McNamara Fallacy

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide. — (Daniel Yankovich)

Procedural Justice Substantive Justice

  • Pure Procedural Justice
    • Tossing a Coin
  • Imperfect Procedural Justice
    • Jury Trials
  • Perfect Procedural Justice
    • You Cut/I'll Pick

Substantive Outcomes

  • Equality
    • Equality of What
  • Desert
    • What does it mean to deserve an outcome?

Discrimination?

Misguided evidence can lead to discrimination

Property

  • Rules that govern people's access to resources and intellectual products
  • According to Modern political theorists (Locke, Hume), it is a fundamental aspect of justice

Types of Property

  • Common
    • Rules that make them available to all
  • Collective
    • Community determines how to use the resources
  • Private
    • Individuals determines how to use or otherwise dispose of the resources/intellectual resource
    • It is social.
    • It is limited.
    • It is a bundle of different rights.

Justification

  • We spend money on protecting your property
  • Why do we not take your property and give it to someone else who puts it to better use?
    • Hume argues, for instance, that there would be too much conflict in deciding who gets to use what resource and for what purpose

Property and Virtue

  • '[W]hen everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business' (Aristotle, Politics, 1263a)
  • Starts at your body: self-ownership

Aquinas: Limited Entitlement

  • People in need have a claim against your property

Locke

Though the Earth…be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.

Information Commons

Criteria for Just Appropriations

  • Labor
  • No waste
  • Enough and As Good
  • Increases the common stock of mankind

Disanalogies

  • Non-Exclusionary
  • Non-Rivalrous

Tavani

  1. Does that law or policy diminish the information commons by unfairly fencing off intellectual objects?
  2. Are ordinary individuals made worse off as a result of that law or policy when they can no longer access information that had previously been available to them?

Kant/Rousseau

  • Provisional Appropriations
  • Ratified by social consent

Hegelian Property

  • Develops out of a Lockean theory
  • Property is one way off objectivizing our self

Consequentialist stories

  • Tragedy of the commons
  • Private property along with a functioning market helps distribute resources

Property Rules/Liability Rules/Inalienability Rules

  • Are you entitled to an injuction or damages

Issues in Property

  • Patent Trolls
  • Right to Repair
  • Breaking DRM

The End of Ownership

Majority Opinion

That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. (…) Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied these principles.

Four Factor Expansive Principles

Although the District Court recited the traditional four-factor test, 275 F.Supp.2d, at 711, it appeared to adopt certain expansive principles suggesting that injunctive relief could not issue in a broad swath of cases. Most notably, it concluded that a "plaintiff's willingness to license its patents" and "its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents" would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue. Id., at 712. But traditional equitable principles do not permit such broad classifications. For example, some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so.

Kennedy's Concurrence in eBay Inc. v.MercExchange, L.L.C.

In cases now arising trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees. … For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent. … When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest. In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

Injunctive Relief

Explain Kennedy's misgivings about injunctive relief in these cases.

The Test

Question 1

  • The moral triggers needed to be linked to a specific moral framework
  • Be Explicit: Why in this theory is this a moral trigger

Question 2

  • There were some mix-ups
  • Always identify the concept that is muddled
  • Be explicit: Why is it a conceptual muddle?

Question 3

  • Stakeholders (How many?)
  • Do you separate the general public from those specifically disadvantaged by a policy?
    • Yeah. Sometimes specific disadvantages to one population would be washed out if only considered relative to a larger classifications
  • Some used answers that were more at home in Deontology

Question 4

  • Use a formulation!
  • Sure. Fairness
  • Kant would love an algorithm? But it may appear on the 2nd formulation that people are being used as a means
  • Discrimination presents a clear problem for universalization, but is the discrimination intentional?

Question 5

  • Some people got a little Utilitarian. Flourishing doesn't equal happiness :)
  • We liked people that mentioned the virtues of police officers
  • Some people think that criminals can flourish qua criminal: No.
  • The article makes the point to distinguish crime from criminality.

Systematic Union of Rational beings

Act only according to those policies that all rational beings could agree to as legislators making laws for a kingdom of ends.

Publicity

All actions relating to the right of other human beings are wrong if their maxim is incompatible with publicity. (Toward Perpetual Peace)

Conscience

  • Answerability to Interpersonal Demands
  • "Representative Person"
  • "If we are not to undermine autonomy, then when we test a behavior or social practice for its moral acceptability, we must take its longer-range consequences for the exercise of autonomy into account."

Scanlon

An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behavior that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, uncoerced, general agreement

Habermas

a moral norm is valid when the foreseeable consequences and side-effects of its general observance for the interests and value-orientations of each individual could be jointly accepted by all concerned without coercion in a rational discourse

Principle of Moral Regard

One may act only in ways that show due moral regard for human beings as members of society, that is: respect for the agency of human beings as autonomous, and concern for the needs of dependent human beings.

Principle U

A moral norm is valid when the foreseeable consequences and side-effects of its general observance for the interests and value-orientations of each individual could be jointly accepted by all concerned without coercion in a rational discourse

Substance of Habermas

  • Commit ourselves to respecting people as dialogically autonomous agents.
  • relative force of different impacts

Moor

A policy is just only if no rational impartial person would reject it as doing unjustifiable harm to the core human values of life, happiness, and autonomy, or the human rights that protect those values.

  • Rights as necessary conditions

Intermediate

  • Substance of value

ICA

(ICA) A cyberpractice CP is morally acceptable only if all reasonable, conscientious stakeholders could agree, on the basis of perspective-sensitive good reasons, that the impacts of CP (i.e., CP and its reasonably foreseeable consequences) are consistent with due moral regard for each stakeholder's autonomous pursuit of values, and dependent satisfaction of needs.

Categories of Values

  • Understanding a value means knowing how to value it.
  • Presumptive force of values
  • Nonetheless, Values must be interpreted

ICA

  • Heavy Burden
  • Morally self-serving

Essentially Contestable Values

  • Inherently open to different interpretations and weightings

Comprehensive CyberEthics

  • Formal
  • Substantive

CP(p)

  • The specific policy within a cyberpractice

DCE

(DCE) A cyberethical evaluation regarding the moral acceptability of cyberpractice CP(p) is dialogically cogent insofar as it is supported by perspective-sensitive good reasons that can lead all reasonable, conscientious stakeholders to agree that the foreseeable impacts of CP(p) are (are not) consistent with due moral regard for each stakeholder's autonomous pursuit of values, and dependent satisfaction of needs.

Dialogically Responsible

  • Formal Condition

to the extent that we take account of, and strive to respond to, the views that have been put forward in different venues by the various stakeholders who give evidence of good faith.

Q(sub)

Are CP(p) and its reasonably foreseeable impacts consistent with due moral regard for each stakeholder's autonomous pursuit of values, and dependent satisfaction of needs?

Q(PM)

(QPM) To what extent does my scrutiny of the relevant perspectives and public process of discourse on the issue warrant confidence that my answer to the substantive question (QSUB) enjoys public merits—i.e., that it can hold up as tenable across those relevant expert and stakeholder perspectives that qualify as reasonable and conscientious?

Dialogical Responsibility

  • Reasonable Acceptance
    • Conscientious
    • Expertise
  • Well-Structured Networks of Communication
    • Macro-social

Polarization

  • Echo Chamber

Public Merits

  • High
  • Mixed
  • Low
  • Absence

Inherent Matters of Collective Judgment

To publish is thus to claim that one's research findings are fruitful for further inquiry, something other scientists can build on. Consequently, the value of research to inquiry as a cooperative endeavor is inherently a matter for collective judgment. To qualify as fruitful for inquiry, after all, different research teams and laboratories should be able to benefit from the work.

Good Theories

  • Empirically Adequate
  • Supported by Sufficient Evidence
  • Wide Explanatory Scope
  • Support Predictions and Retrodictions
  • Avoid ad hoc adjustments
  • Fruitful for further research

PSGR

We could then define "perspective-sensitive reasons" as reasons that connect with the different perspectives on the issue, and we could define good perspective-sensitive reasons as perspective- sensitive reasons that find acceptance and thus enjoy public merits.

Networks of Communication

  • Whether venues of communication exist to distribute relevant information and arguments across mutually relevant publics
  • Whether widespread biases, prejudices, mutual suspicion, and the like block an argument's travel across contexts, or foster the spread of dubious arguments
  • Whether misinformation has distorted how arguments travel

Issue Definition

  • Public Merits: Framing
  • Impact Analysis

Conscientious Stakeholders

  • Conscientious and Reasonable Stakeholders
  • Careful Well-thought out arguments
  • It's not opinion, it's argument and the judgment of its cogency by C&R stakeholders

Arguments are evaluated from perspectives

For dialogically responsible cyberethics, every conscientious, reasonable stakeholder qualifies as a judge of cogent cyberethical argument—which is not to say: a self-sufficient authority on morality, but rather: someone who has a legitimate place in the moral dialogue.

Arguments

  • Truth: its supporting reasons are true or plausible,
  • Relevance: the supporting reasons genuinely connect with the moral question as formulated
  • Sufficient support: the reasons provide sufficient basis for regarding the moral question as a serious one
  • Nonfallacious reasoning: the argument avoids fallacies, for example, the moral question is not loaded, does not rely on a dubious slippery slope assumption, etc.

How long does the dialogical process take

  • Stakeholders may change
  • Moral opacities can cleared up
  • Policy vacuums are filled
  • The process is indefinite

How to balance important values with less weighty but wider impact values

  • Morally Conscientious stakeholders take greater goods into account
  • Some realy weighty values can displace a really widely-felt inconvenience

What happens if you miss a stakeholder

  • It makes your argument weaker
  • In some cases, it could invalidate your argument

Is there always a satisfactory answer

  • Some values may be incommensurable
  • Counter-arguments may be tenable, but also inconclusive

Clarifying the Question

  • What Question are we asking

Issue Definition

Impact Analysis

  • Moral Question

Is it morally permissible to require open-source code portfolios on a resume/CV?

Judgment of Values

  • Clarify concepts
    • Negation vs Undermining Pursuit
    • Probability of impacts
    • Short vs. long term impacts

Is it consistent with DMR?

  • Due Moral Regard

Public Merits Evaluation

  1. What are the relevant perspectives for evaluating the dialogical cogency of your argument? This normally includes every (non-malicious) stakeholder perspective and every relevant expertise.
  2. Have you found reasonable arguments from conscientious stakeholders for every stakeholder & expert perspective? Or are some perspectives inherently uninterested in moral discourse?
  3. Is there evidence of good communicative channels across perspectives, so that their views are well-informed?

Emotional AI

1.Systems that use machine learning that provide feedback on people’s emotional states, so that individuals or organizations can change in response

2.Systems that use measurements of people’s emotional states to adjust the operation of a product or service

  1. Systems that imitate emotionally-informed human-to-human interactions

The Facebook Emotional Contagion Experiment

Software and Safety

The Ford Pinto

Ford’s use of cost-benefit formulas, which must assign monetary values to human life and suffering, is precisely what the law demands in assessing civil liability suits.The court may disagree with the decision, but to blame industry for using such a method would violate the very rules of civil liability.

The Pinto Memo

Memo

Learned Hand Formula: Reasonable

[T]he owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B less than PL.

Software Upgrade?

Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.