During a recent talk to computer science students and faculty at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, Fla., I closed with thoughts about ethics for people who create software. The inclusion of "backdoors" into a Web browser, the capability to track people who use cellphones, and the use of facial-recognition programs raise ethical issues. How much intrusion should consumers put up with, and what are the ethical responsibilities of the people who create these applications?
During the question-and-answer session, several people asked me how much intrusion I will put up with. I answered, "Not much." I refuse to show a photo ID when I make an in-person credit card purchase, I have no Facebook page, I rarely use "affinity" cards in stores, and my driver's license uses an ID number instead of my Social Security number. My family and I take other privacy measures, too.
In some situations, though, we cannot try to protect our privacy until we know someone has violated it. Suppose you slip and fall on spilled liquid in a grocery store and must sue the store chain to recover damages. Because you use an affinity card to get discounts, the store knows how much beer and wine you purchase, and threatens to reveal the quantities and dates at trial. Perhaps then the jury will think you had too much to drink and lost your balance. You thought your records of purchases remained private, and the store never told you otherwise.
I have heard stories about insurance companies investigating food purchases to determine the type of diet an applicant follows and whether that diet includes a lot of fatty or high-calorie food. So you might get denied life insurance because your grocery purchases reveal an "unhealthy" lifestyle. The software doesn't know you buy two dozen donuts each Saturday for your kid's soccer team.
The process of gathering information about you and then using it for a purpose unknown to you raises ethical issues for the people who create such systems. Thus, programmers and software designers must revisit the ethics of their profession and consider them carefully.
I agree about squiggly lines of ethics; they often apply so clearly to damn others but when it hits close to home, its always quite another story.But it can be simple – Live above reproach, and be slow to accuse others.When someone gets cornered in an accusation of ethics violations, remember, let he who is without any violation charge the first allegation. (i.e., "cast the first stone") Sound Biblical-? It is.
I think the problem started much higher than the programmers or implementers but what the rule makers. Real long lasting change must start at the top. Because unfortunately, not everyone has the guts to stick up for what they think is right. Plus for everyone one person who gets fired or refuse there is someone else to take their place. The truth be told not everyone has the same ethical compass. The rules for what's right or wrong changes from person to person not to mention with each generation. Somehow, somewhere along the way the rules changed some of the things that use to be unacceptable are now commonplace and well accepted.
People in companies who make these types of rules and procedure may not have had bad intention but they must realize not all things meant for good turn out that way. Some rules were put into place to protect us but didn't turn out that way. Like showing IDs for credit card purchases. The intent of showing ID is/was to protect the consumer and the store from unauthorized purchases. This isn't fool proof, ever heard of fake IDs.
Years ago, companies would pass of the first $50 or so to the consumer when someone made unauthorized purchases to your credit card, now that adding insult to injury. My brother the president of a financial institution refused to implement such a rule because first you have been violated now you have to pay for it too???? With the use of social media and the like I don't think we as consumers can depend on having any more privacy than we have now, in fact I am willing to bet we will have less and less. The next least and greatest way to expose everything about everyone is on the horizon.
"I refuse to show a photo ID when I make an in-person credit card purchase,"
This is just being stupid by orneriness. I wish they all asked for ID. I'd rather show a photo ID and have a clerk really look at it than the cursory glance at the signature space they usually perform. I don't sign the cards, a protection I take in case my physical cards are stolen. However, store clerks usually don't even notice even when they make the motions of looking at the signature.
At the point of purchase, the store clerk has your credit card number which ties into all kinds of other data anyway. And they are seeing your face...hopefully, if the card is not stolen. For me, the privacy ship has sailed as soon as the purchase is made, and I'd rather have my facial appearance or some other biometric used for security from theft.
Not stupid at all. In fact, the VISA and MasterCard merchant agreements clearly state a merchant MAY NOT ask for a photo ID. Repeated requests for photo IDs usually come at the behest of an ignorant store manager and could cause VISA or MC to cancel their agreement. Never provide more personal information than necessary. I'm always surprised that so many people do not know their rights to privacy and display a photo ID whenever someone asks.
I once asked a spokesperson at a charge-card company why they don't use a fingerprint scanner to authenticate credit-card purchases. He told me it would cost more to install the scanners, buy or create software, and gather fingerprint data that it would save them. Thus it cost less to have reserves for fraudulent purchases than to secure against them.
Any information we can glean through our senses while not breaking any laws or rules is fair game to anyone. Prudence tells us what to spread around and what not to spread around.
So again, it's not the software, it's the people. Sound familiar? It's not the gun, it's the people. It's not the car, it's the driver. etc.
We just need to work out that balance again - between benefits verses rights/privacy as in all things. What we get will not be perfect.
Hi, ChasChas. So then if a company gives me a tour of its plant and I see something on a new design on a lab bench it's OK to take the information I have seen and use it? Honorable people have a set of ethics that tells them although the information is visible, it's not theirs and they cannot exploit it.
I think I verified that, Jon. I mentioned that prudence dictates what is spread around, but the IP still goes into the brain. I mentioned not only laws, but rules too.
The company also has a list of privacy principles, software principles and design principles. While the ideas expressed are fine, I do think Google walks a squiggly line when it comes to privacy.
Perhaps privacy isn't what it used to be. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg once quipped that nobody cares about privacy any longer. Interesting comment.
"I doubt Franklin, Galvani, and Volta expected their efforts to store electricity to be turned into a device like a Taser. It's impossible to anticipate how one's efforts will be misused in the future."
Not so sure about Franklin. He was known for getting all his guests to hold hands in a circle and and then inserting a Leyden jar (charged capacitor) into the circle circuit to shock everyone at once. He also got a few tickles from the key-kite-lightining experiments. Not so sure about Galvani--he used to shock dead frogs with a bi-metallic battery. And don't forget Edison and all those animal and human electrocutions to show that DC was supposedly safer than AC.
Good thing we engineers don't have a reputation as cruel sadists.
Jon: I have to admit that I've been one of those people who readily showed my picture ID because I thought that was the right and safe thing to do. Having read your column and the follow-up comments here, I won't do it anymore.
The Machinist Calc Pro computes speeds and feed rates for milling, turning, and drilling: cutting speed, spindle speed, feed rate (inches/minute), cutting feed, etc.
During a recent meeting with engineering-school faculty and alumni, Contributing Technical Editor Jon Titus talked about whether colleges should educate generalists or specialists. What do you think?
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
2 
