WORK

CASES

ISSUES

EVENTS

LINKS

ABOUT

Social Responsibility in the Information Age

Reflections following a new report from the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility

"The computer revolution…is not merely technological and financial, it is fundamentally social and ethical" 

The physical manifestations of technological change surround us, affecting almost everything we do. The way we shop, the way shops are supplied, leisure activities, the way we organise travel, vehicles - all these have changed over the past 30 years or so. And major changes are occurring in the way we work. 

One of the most visible social manifestations of "chips with everything" is the all-pervasive use of mobile phones. Technology has changed who we can talk to at any given time - we are not so limited by where we are or who we are with.

This has a ripple effect on the nature of communication as a whole and of people's attitudes to it. Old models of communication - what you say to whom, and where - are being replaced by anytime, anywhere communication. That we may be microwaving our brains in the process is only one of the issues this raises. 

The Internet, too, is beginning to transform the way we do things. New models are developing of how information is published and accessed. New types of community, based on interest and accident, are emerging. Your child and his friend on their games console have become part of a global community, playing with kids in the US, Malaysia and Lithuania on a daily basis. Shouldn't they be kicking a ball around in the park with the kids from the next street? 

For someone working, these new technologies make them more constantly available. They increase expectations of a rapid response (though it doesn't mean it always happens!). It can mean their home life is invaded - or it can mean that they do not need to go to particular place to access information. 

Highlighting the challenges 

Society is changing under the impact of these new technologies. But we are not sure how, nor if it is for the better. And we don't yet know how to respond to the social and ethical challenges that are arising. The first priority, perhaps, is to spot these emerging challenges. 

The Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility (CCSR) at De Montfort University ran a series of seminars in 1998-9 to identify the issues and promote dialogue between practitioners and academics. A report based on these seminars has now been published. 

Social responsibility in the Information Age sets out a number of areas within which social and ethical issues are explored: 

• Work 

• Information 

• Professionalism 

• Education, and 

• Privacy. 

These subject areas reflect the individual seminars, but many of the issues cut across the boundaries: the effects of globalisation, the ownership of information, the need to act responsibly with information that affects other people, loss of face to face interaction, equity and equality of opportunity, freedom and regulation, economic growth and exploitation. 

The familiarity of the issues, however, might lead one to question just how revolutionary this "computer revolution" really is in ethical terms. For instance, the section on "Professionalism" asks whether a code of ethical responsibility needs to emerge in the IT industry to ensure that technicians address the wider implications of what they do. But here the issue is in principle much the same as has faced nuclear scientists, geneticists or even, in some cases, administrators who take refuge behind higher authority or narrow definitions of their job responsibilities. 

ICT and responsibility in the workplace

Many of these older issues and cross-cutting themes relate to changes in the world of work. The authors outline what they see as being the main problems arising from the growth of location independent work (LIW): 

• Constraints on creativity - which usually depend on face-to-face direct interaction 

• Isolation - remote workers may be, or feel, isolated 

• Constraints on personal development - due to loss of informal contact with fellow workers 

• Difficulties of supervision and management of LIW 

• Loss of privacy, and subsequent erosion of trust 

• Intrusion of work into home life 

• Negative effect on service industries supporting office life 

• Loss of work overseas 

• Need for continuous retraining 

• Information overload. 

Apart from a paragraph about the potential for revitalising local communities and reducing the need to travel, the tone of the "Work" section in the report is primarily negative. It is basically saying, "Look, technology is going to cause a whole range of social and personal problems, and we'd better address them". 

This approach has an unfortunate tendency to imply that the present work situation is ideal, and that change implies threat. Rather than focusing on particular fears, there is a need to dig a bit deeper and look at the issues underlying each identified problem. Many of the individual problems are addressed by good Information Age management practice - see for example our review of Managing Telework .

Take the first 4 or 5 problems identified in the list above: these are aspects of wider issues of communication and social relationships. The nature of communications is changing - this means in the workplace, just as everywhere else. We need to look at what this mean for social relationships, and for communities (family communities, work communities, friendships). 

Approaching the broader issues should be the starting point for a work on social responsibility. There is a need to go back to first principles, and ask "What should work be like? What should our homes, and communities, be like?" and "What is achievable using Information Age technologies to improve the way we live and work?" 

Is it irresponsible to leave this worker home alone?

Privacy and surveillance 

Information Age technologies are clearly having an impact on personal privacy and the ability of government and others to know more about their citizens/customers/victims. 

Many of the issues are not new. The totalitarian regimes of the mid to late 20th century held vast amounts of data about their subjects without extensive use of computers, and had very effective techniques of surveillance. In principle, computers can increase the "efficiency" of such systems, and offer a way to reduce the layers of bureaucracy that have hitherto been needed for serious repression. 

Old techniques, such as phone tapping and rights of access by the state to data for security reasons are being "modernised" by measures such as the RIP Act (Regulation of Investigatory Powers), and attempts to force Internet Service Providers to comply with government snooping. Freedom and privacy on the one hand, and security and regulation on the other are old issues, raising the spectres of Big Brother and Big Government trampling on the rights of the individual and of free enterprise. 

Are there new issues here? Or is it that we need to translate traditional safeguards into an Information Age setting? It is perhaps a question of scale. The capacity for third parties to hold so much information about you and track your activities has created a new order of issues. 

There is also a question of, "How worried should we be?" Anyone who has ever dealt with the utility companies or government departments will know that at least 50% of the information they hold about you is wrong - and much of the rest is irrelevant. 

A New Scientist headline from a few years ago ran "In the future, everyone will be watching everyone else - and no one will care". CCTV, desktop video, webcams, Big Brother (the "real" and highly popular TV show on Channel 4, not Orwell's one) - all these indicate a growing willingness on our parts to watch and be watched. People build personal web pages, and happily enter their personal profiles (real or fictional) into forums and chat rooms. Perhaps part of what we are seeing evolve is as much a trend towards projecting our identities into the virtual world as of information-hungry predators wolfing up our vital statistics. 

It's worth thinking about where we get our ideas about "rights to privacy" from, and why we define them as we do. In traditional societies with low mobility, there is in practice much less privacy than in our modern hectic and fragmented society. Our high levels of mobility and small, self-contained family units have created a society where we watch soaps rather than know all about our neighbours' lives. 

What are the issues, then? Here's a brief outline of the main issues:

• What is privacy? i.e. what aspects of life should we be able to conceal from others? - and which "others"? 

• How do we define a right to privacy? 

• How does a right to privacy apply in different contexts (e.g. at work)? 

• To what extent do al people have an equal right to privacy (e.g. celebrities v. "private individuals")?

• To what extent should governments and other parties be restrained from capturing and retaining information? 

• When do we have a right to surveillance (e.g. as an employer, or in protecting property, preventing crime, etc)? 

• What rights should we have in finding our what others know about us? 

• Should the public policy emphasis be on restricting information capture, or on ensuring rights of public access to information?

Are these the only issues?

The De Montfort University report is clearly an "hors d'oeuvres", outlining some of the issues for future debate. The main course is yet to come. A number of important issues are raised but not pursued, for example how house design needs to change to accommodate home-based working - there are clearly social responsibility issues involved here. (See the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on Living at Work for further exploration of these issues). 

Key areas not included in the report are

• governance

• sustainability

• community. 

The new information and communication technologies have the potential to make significant impacts in these areas.

In future occasional Flexibility features we will be looking at the issues of social and ethical responsibility involved here, which are all part of living and working in the Information Age.

We were watching you watching us...