Computer and information ethics, as well as other fields of applied ethics, need ethical theories which coherently unify deontological and consequentialist aspects of ethical analysis. The proposed theory of just consequentialism emphasizes consequences of policies within the constraints of justice. This makes just consequentialism a practical and theoretically sound approach to ethical problems of computer and information ethics.

Why has autonomy been a leading idea in philosophical writing on bioethics, and why has trust been marginal? In this important book, Onora O'Neill suggests that the conceptions of individual autonomy so widely relied on in bioethics are philosophically and ethically inadequate, and that they undermine rather than support relations of trust. She shows how Kant's non-individualistic view of autonomy provides a stronger basis for an approach to medicine, science and biotechnology, and does not marginalize untrustworthiness, while also explaining why (...) trustworthy individuals and institutions are often undeservingly mistrusted. Her arguments are illustrated with issues raised by practices such as the use of genetic information by the police or insurers, research using human tissues, uses of new reproductive technologies, and media practices for reporting on medicine, science and technology. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics will appeal to a wide range of readers in ethics, bioethics and related disciplines. (shrink)

The present study examines certain challenges that KDD (Knowledge Discovery in Databases) in general and data mining in particular pose for normative privacy and public policy. In an earlier work (see Tavani, 1999), I argued that certain applications of data-mining technology involving the manipulation of personal data raise special privacy concerns. Whereas the main purpose of the earlier essay was to show what those specific privacy concerns are and to describe how exactly those concerns have been introduced by the use (...) of certain KDD and data-mining techniques, the present study questions whether the use of those techniques necessarily violates the privacy of individuals. This question is considered vis-à-vis a recent theory of privacy advanced by James Moor (1997). The implications of that privacy theory for a data-mining policy are also considered. (shrink)

In this paper we will examine some ethical aspects of the role that computers and computing increasingly play in new genetics. Our claim is that there is no new genetics without computer science. Computer science is important for the new genetics on two levels: from a theoretical perspective, and from the point of view of geneticists practice. With respect to , the new genetics is fully impregnate with concepts that are basic for computer science. Regarding , recent developments in the (...) Human Genome Project have shown that computers shape the practices of molecular genetics; an important example is the Shotgun Method's contribution to accelerating the mapping of the human genome. A new challenge to the HGP is provided by the Open Source Philosophy , which is another way computer technologies now influence the shaping of public policy debates involving genomics. (shrink)

I begin with a discussion of the value of privacy and what we lose without it. I then turn to the difficulties of preserving privacy for genetic information and other medical records in the face of advanced information technology. I suggest three alternative public policy approaches to the problem of protecting individual privacy and also preserving databases for genetic research:(1) governmental guidelines and centralized databases, (2) corporate self-regulation, and (3) my hybrid approach. None of these are unproblematic; I discuss strengths (...) and drawbacks of each, emphasizing the importance of protecting the privacy of sensitive medical and genetic information as well as letting information technology flourish to aid patient care, public health and scientific research. (shrink)

This paper is the result of the research I undertook at Lancaster University with a Marie Curie Fellowship during the academic years 2000‐2002. The objective of this research was to study the limits and the challenges of the analogy between molecular geneticists’ work and hackers’ activities. By focusing on this analogy I aim to explore the different ethical and philosophical issues surrounding new genetics and its IPR regulations. The paper firstly will show the philosophical background lying behind the proposed analogy (...) and analyses the sense in which we can talk of geneticists as “hackers.” It will provide grounds for the analogy by exploring some of the techniques used by geneticists; in particular it will focus on the so‐called Shotgun method for genomic sequencing. After having provided reasons for the proposed analogy I will claim that the open source philosophy used in the computer field would be a good way to regulate research in the genetics and in pharmaceutical field too. The open source philosophy would provide fair distribution of research opportunities around the globe with the shift from patenting to copyright in sensitive fields such as genetics. (shrink)

Computing plays an important role in genetics (and vice versa).Theoretically, computing provides a conceptual model for thefunction and malfunction of our genetic machinery. Practically,contemporary computers and robots equipped with advancedalgorithms make the revelation of the complete human genomeimminent – computers are about to reveal our genetic soulsfor the first time. Ethically, computers help protect privacyby restricting access in sophisticated ways to genetic information.But the inexorable fact that computers will increasingly collect,analyze, and disseminate abundant amounts of genetic informationmade available through the (...) genetic revolution, not to mentionthat inexpensive computing devices will make genetic informationgathering easier, underscores the need for strong and immediateprivacy legislation. (shrink)

The paper has three parts. First, a survey and analysis is given ofthe structure of individual rights in the recent EU Directive ondata protection. It is argued that at the core of this structure isan unexplicated notion of what the data subject can `reasonablyexpect' concerning the further processing of information about himor herself. In the second part of the paper it is argued thattheories of privacy popular among philosophers are not able to shed much light on the issues treated in (...) the Directive, whichare, arguably, among the central problems pertaining to theprotection of individual rights in the information society. Inthe third part of the paper, some suggestions are made for a richerphilosophical theory of data protection and privacy. It is arguedthat this account is better suited to the task of characterizingthe central issues raised by the Directive. (shrink)