Recently, a colleague called and asked for some help on a research project he was starting. He remembered that I had co-edited a book about the ethics and information technologies (The Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Information Technology, Information Science Press), and was looking for some guidance on search terms to use. His project was related to the implosion of the United States financial sector, and his contribution was to be on if/how people subrogated their oversight responsibilities to computers.
I knew the phenomenon he was describing, of course. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine when, as a customer dealing with a service issue, I am told, "the computer won't let me do what you're asking." It makes me crazy when we blame the technology for our own shortcomings. Computers do what they are told to do.
The problem was, I couldn't remember what catchphrase was used to describe the phenomenon. "Anthropomorphizing computers" isn't likely to help in a literature review (although that will still lead to about 7,700 hits in Google). "Blaming technology" gets you closer to the point (over 18 million hits), but still doesn't have the scholarly patina.
While I don't keep every article I read or use for work, I do have some favorites, especially related to the impact on information technologies. As I shuffled through my files, I found what I was looking for: the text of a speech given by Dr. Richard De Georges at Bentley College's Center for Business Ethics in 1999. In it, he laments the "abdication of IT ethical responsibility," and describes "The Myth of Amoral Computing."
Amoral computing. Computers do not have morals. Yet society seems to unquestioning accept the application of information technologies, without considering the social and ethical implications. Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you? Beyond that are the legal considerations when something goes wrong and the computer is the proximal cause. Are the agents accountable? In my opinion, they should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment