The Role of Government in Ensuring Technology Ethic

Introduction

Technology, according to Turkle (2017), is a collection of devices, machinery, processes, systems, and materials used by people to control, manage, and alter their surroundings in order to meet their needs and desires.  While van den Hoven (2020), concedes that technolgy ethics focuses on addressing and assessing the moral implications of technological advancement and developing ethical policies and regulations to address the various effects technology has on the society. Technology has become an integral part of modern society, impacting almost every aspect of our lives. From the way we communicate with one another to how we conduct business and access information, to even how we live our lives at home; simply put, technology has transformed the way we interact with the world around us. However, this rapid growth and integration of technology has also brought with it a host of ethical challenges, such as privacy concerns, personal safety concerns, data security, and the potential for misuse of technology. Additionally, concerns regarding privacy protection have been raised by the IT industry’s gathering and use of personal data. The development of autonomous systems has also prompted questions concerning responsibility and culpability in the event of accidents. The need of government engagement in ensuring technology ethics is highlighted by these cases (Martinho et al., 2021; Eleni, and Kalypso, 2021). As a result, there is a growing need for governments to play a critical role in shaping technology ethics and policies to ensure that technology serves the greater good of society, without making it a threat to the users and society as a whole.

The role of government in technology ethics is crucial as it helps to provide guidance and oversight on the use of technology. In commenting on the role of governments in establishing laws and other rules that governs technology, Floridi (2016), contends that government regulation is required to guarantee that technology is created, fabricated or developed and applied ethically. Governments must balance the needs of the public and the private sector, ensuring that technology is not only safe and secure but also ethical and aligned with societal values. Governments, according to Floridi (2013), should be instrumental in creating ethical guidelines for technological advancement. Governments can create norms that control the ethical use and advancement of technology by participating in and welcoming ethical discourse and expert consultation. The aforementioned, can offer guidelines and values for decision-making, ensuring that technology adheres to society norms. This requires an understanding of the ethical implications of technology and how they relate to broader societal issues such as equality, justice, and privacy (Brey, 2012). The advances of technology have also facilitated the misuse of technology and it became easy to breach the privacy of other users as well as compromise the security and safety of society members using open data sharing platforms; thus, making the government intervention in terms of regulation an essential matter to preserve the use of technology to ethical and socially beneficial aspects.

Given all the above, this research paper aims to explore the role of government in technology ethics. The paper will start by defining technology ethics and its importance in modern society. It will then examine the ethical challenges posed by technology, such as privacy concerns, data security, and the potential for technology to be misused. The paper will also review existing literature on the role of government in technology ethics, including ethical frameworks and policies that have been implemented by various governments around the world as well as the identification of gaps and the challenges that they have been facing in implementing those policies and developing the frameworks of regulation. In addition, the paper will also explore the moral issues raised by cutting-edge technologies like biotech, artificial intelligence (AI), and routing domains or autonomous systems. consider the various perspectives on the role of government in technology ethics, including the argument for government regulation versus self-regulation by the private sector or technology developers from a social responsibility aspect, and will also shed light onhow the government may ensure the creation, application, and utilization of technologies that are ethical and morally acceptable. The paper will conclude by discussing the implications of government involvement in technology ethics and the future of technology ethics

.

Literature Review

Technology ethics is a field of study that seeks to understand and address the ethical challenges posed by the advancement and development of technology. As technology continues to evolve and advance, it has led to a major reshape of society (Miller & Yen, 2019). Therefore, it is important to understand its ethical implications and ensure that the developments align with societal values. There is a growing body of literature on the role of government in technology ethics, with many scholars and policymakers calling for greater government involvement in terms of regulation and guidance to the developers to address the ethical challenges posed by technology (Marchant, Gary 2019; Eleni and Kalypso, 2021; Muller, 2020)

One of the key ethical challenges posed by technology is privacy. The increasing use of technology in our daily lives has led to the collection of vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about how this data is collected, stored, and used. On a daily basis, we use social media platforms to share our life events or to check up on our friends and family, rendering our data, browsing habits, interests, and much more available in public domain and exposing it to misuse by various parties. Scholars have argued that the government has a crucial role to play in protecting individuals’ privacy in the digital age (Floridi, 2014; Friedewald & Müller, 2013; Johnson, 2014). This can be achieved through the implementation of privacy laws and regulations that govern the collection, storage, and use of personal data. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a comprehensive privacy law that provides individuals with greater control over their personal data which also enforces various service providers into adhering to regulations and if they do not, then they would face consequences.

Another key ethical challenge posed by technology is the potential for misuse. Technology can be used to promote harmful behavior, such as cyberbullying, hate speech, cyber stalking, and online harassment. Governments can play a critical role in addressing this challenge by implementing regulations and policies that prevent the misuse of technology (Kallinikos et al., 2010; Diamantopoulou, & Karyda, 2022.  For example, many countries have enacted laws that criminalize cyberbullying and online harassment, such as, the following countries:

• United States: cyberbullying and online harassment are criminalized under various state laws. For example, California’s “cyberbullying law” (SB 568) makes it illegal to harass, intimidate, or bully someone online, while New York’s “cyberbullying law” (NYS Penal Law § 240.30) prohibits electronic communication with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person.
• United Kingdom: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 criminalize online harassment and cyberbullying. Under these laws, it is an offense to send or publish messages that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening.
• Canada: cyberbullying and online harassment are addressed under criminal law. The Criminal Code includes provisions that prohibit criminal harassment (Section 264) and the distribution of intimate images without consent (Section 162.1).
• Australia: cyberbullying is a criminal offense under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The act prohibits the use of a carriage service (such as the internet or a mobile phone) to menace, harass, or cause offense.

The role of government in technology ethics is not without controversy. Some argue that the government’s involvement in technology ethics is unnecessary and that self-regulation by the private sector is sufficient to address ethical challenges posed by technology. However, others argue that self-regulation is insufficient, and that the government must take an active role in shaping technology ethics (Latour, 2005; Nissenbaum, 2004; Stefanovic & Ghilezan, 2021). Proponents of government involvement argue that ethical challenges posed by technology are complex and require a comprehensive approach that can only be achieved through government intervention.In recent years, there have been several examples of governments taking an active role in technology ethics. For example, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken action against companies and service providers that engage in unethical practices, such as the unauthorized collection of personal data (FTC, 2021). However, the European Union has taken a proactive approach to privacy by developing a framework and enacting it, which would be the GDPR (European Union, 2018).

According to the European Union (2018), One of the key features of the GDPR is the concept of “privacy by design and default.” This principle requires organizations to build data protection into their systems and processes from the outset, rather than adding it as an afterthought. This means that privacy considerations must be an integral part of any technology or system that processes, stores, and analyzes personal data, including hardware, software, and processes. Privacy by design and default also requires organizations to limit the amount of personal data they collect, use, and store, and to provide individuals with clear and concise information about how their data is being used. The framework also enforces service providers to provide access to their users’ consolidated data profile and download it to their personal devices; furthermore, it gives the users the chance to delete all their data on demand.

Case Studies

In this paper we will also examine various case studies in which government intervention was necessary as a consequence to their unethical conduct.

• The Cambridge Analytica Scandal: In 2018, a major data scandal involving the British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica. As per Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison (2018), the scandal involved the collection and unauthorized use of personal data of millions of Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica was accused of obtaining the data through a third-party app that was used by Facebook users, and then using the data to build detailed profiles of individual users for political purposes. The scandal raised serious concerns about the ethics of data collection and use by technology companies and political organizations. Facebook was heavily criticized for its role in the scandal, as it was alleged that the company failed to protect its users’ data and did not take adequate measures to prevent its misuse by third-party organizations like Cambridge Analytica. The scandal led to a public outcry and a series of investigations by government authorities in several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called to testify before the US Congress, and the company was fined $5 billion by the US Federal Trade Commission for its role in the scandal. The scandal also sparked a wider debate about the need for stronger regulations to protect personal data and prevent its unauthorized use by companies and political organizations (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018).
• The Boeing 737 Max Crisis: In October 2018 and March 2019, a series of events that occurred after two separate crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max aircraft. In both crashes, all passengers and crew members on board were killed. Investigators determined that the crashes were caused by a malfunction of the aircraft’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which is designed to automatically adjust the aircraft’s pitch in certain situations. Following the crashes and the release of those findings, Boeing came under scrutiny for its development and certification of the 737 Max, and for its handling of the crisis. The company initially publicly maintained that the aircraft was safe and that the MCAS system was not a significant factor in the crashes. However, evidence later emerged suggesting that Boeing had failed to adequately disclose information about the MCAS system to regulators and airlines, and that it had prioritized profits over safety in its rush to get the aircraft to market, this has caused a major crisis to Boeing. As a result of the crisis, the 737 Max was grounded by regulatory authorities around the world, and Boeing faced a significant loss of revenue, as well as a damaged reputation. The company was also subject to investigations by regulatory bodies and lawsuits from victims’ families, and it ultimately agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to airlines and other parties affected by the crisis. The 737 Max was eventually cleared to return to service in November 2020, following a series of modifications and safety improvements but that is only after various negative outlashes that have occurred affecting the producer as well as the airlines that use that aircraft as part of their fleet. (Hickey & Isidore, 2019).
• The COVID-19 Contact Tracing Debate: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries developed contact tracing apps to help curb the spread of the virus. Such as the following:
  1. Singapore: Singapore was one of the first countries to develop a contact tracing app, called TraceTogether. The app uses Bluetooth signals to track when two users are in close proximity to each other and stores this data on the user’s device (Government Technology Agency of Singapore, n.d.)
  2. South Korea: South Korea also developed a contact tracing app, called Corona 100m, which uses GPS data to track the movement of infected individuals and notify others who may have come into contact with them (National Information Society Agency of South Korea, n.d.).
  3. Germany: Germany developed a contact tracing app, called Corona-Warn-App, which uses Bluetooth signals to anonymously track when two users are in close proximity to each other. The app was developed in collaboration with the Robert Koch Institute, the German federal agency responsible for disease control and prevention (Robert Koch, n.d.).
  4. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom developed a contact tracing app, called NHS COVID-19, which uses Bluetooth signals to track when two users are in close proximity to each other. The app also allows users to report symptoms and book a COVID-19 test (NHS, n.d.)
  5. Australia: Australia developed a contact tracing app, called COVIDSafe, which uses Bluetooth signals to track when two users are in close proximity to each other. The app was developed by the Australian government in collaboration with the Digital Transformation Agency (Australia Government, n.d.)

However, the use of these apps raised ethical concerns around data privacy and government surveillance. The case highlighted the need for government oversight and regulation of technology to ensure that the public interest is protected (Friedewald et al., 2021).

Ethical Concerns Surrounding Technology

As technology continues to impact our lives in ways that were previously unimaginable. While technology has brought many benefits to society, such as increased productivity and improved communication, it has also created a host of ethical challenges that must be addressed. The ethical issues that impact society could be very detrimental to the progression of the younger sector of society and the upcoming leaders as they could be exposed to various health damages from a psychological perspective, for example, cyber bullying could lead to chronic anxiety as well as depression, in addition to a myriad of other social regression conditions.

Since technology continues to advance, many jobs are becoming automated, which has led to concerns about the displacement of workers as many of their jobs are being completed by robots or software programs. In addition, there are concerns about the quality of jobs that are being created, as many new jobs in the technology sector are low-paying and do not provide benefits such as health insurance or retirement plans leading to a decrease of the standard of living of those workers as well as their families and furthermore the community, they are part of. These issues have led to calls for greater regulation of the technology industry, to ensure that workers are protected, and that technology is used in a way that benefits society as a whole (Friedman, 2019).

According to a study by Singh  & Nagaraju (2021), many technological innovations have had a negative impact on the environment, such as the production of electronic waste, the use of non-renewable resources, and the release of greenhouse gasses. In addition, the energy consumption associated with technology has become a significant contributor to climate change. These concerns have led to calls for the development of more sustainable technologies, as well as increased regulation of the technology industry to ensure that companies are held accountable for their environmental impact. The development of sustainable technology could also be costly, thus discouraging to developers who are already heavily invested in research and development and seeking to earn revenues on the research they have already invested in rather than further investing in it and reducing their return on investment ratios.

In addition to these specific concerns, there are also broader ethical questions surrounding the use of technology. For example, there are concerns about privacy, as technology has made it easier than ever for companies and governments to collect, process, and use personal data. The use of data could easily be deemed unethical and the availability of the data and lack of regulation or consequences to abusing the trust given to them by the users could make it tempting for various parties to misuse the data whether its to reach a financial goal or a personal goal. There are also concerns about the impact of technology on social relationships, as people spend more time interacting with screens and less time interacting with each other in person. These concerns raise important questions about the appropriate use of technology and the responsibility of individuals and organizations to consider the ethical implications of their actions (Solove  & Citron, 2018).

Addressing these ethical concerns requires a multifaceted approach that involves both individuals and organizations. Individuals have a responsibility to consider the ethical implications of their use of technology, and to advocate for greater transparency and accountability from the technology industry. Organizations, particularly those in the technology industry, have a responsibility to consider the broader societal impacts of their products and services, and to take steps to mitigate any negative effects. In addition, governments have a critical role to play in regulating the use of technology, to ensure that it is used in a way that benefits society as a whole (Floridi, 2019). As such, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the use of the radio spectrum and enforces rules to ensure that broadcasters operate in the public interest (European Commission, 2019). According to Li (2019), the FCC regulates the use of the radio spectrum by licensing broadcasters and assigning them specific frequencies. The FCC also sets technical standards for broadcast equipment to ensure that broadcasters are using the radio spectrum efficiently.

In addition, the FCC enforces rules to ensure that broadcasters operate in the public interest. The FCC requires broadcasters to air a certain amount of programming that serves the public interest, such as news and educational programming. The FCC also has rules against indecent or obscene programming. Specifically, to enforce these rules, the FCC has the authority to issue fines, revoke licenses, and take other actions against broadcasters who violate the rules. The FCC also investigates complaints from the public and other organizations about violations of its rules (Li, 2019).

Implemented Laws and Regulations

According to Cheng & Wang (2019), further to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which is implemented by the European Union (EU), another comprehensive privacy law is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) implemented by the state of California in 2020. The CCPA provides California residents with the right to know what personal information is being collected about them by companies, and the right to request that their information be presented to them and further more deleted upon their request. The law also requires companies to disclose how they use personal information and to provide consumers with the ability to opt-out of the sale of their personal information.

In addition to the EU and California, many other countries have implemented privacy laws aimed at protecting personal data. For example, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) requires organizations to obtain consent from individuals for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, and to ensure that the information is accurate and secure. Similarly, Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) requires organizations to obtain consent from individuals for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, and to establish measures to protect the information from unauthorized access or disclosure (Cheng & Wang, 2019).

Having said that, the field of technology ethics has emerged as a critical area of inquiry that seeks to address the ethical challenges posed by the use of technology. The role of government in technology ethics is essential to provide guidance, oversight, and regulation in ensuring the ethical use of technology and in some cases, enforcement. While there is some debate on the extent of government involvement in technology ethics, the growing consensus is that the government has a crucial role to play in ensuring that technology serves the greater good of society. Governments have already begun taking active roles in shaping technology ethics through legislation and regulation, such as the European Union’s GDPR and the actions of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As technology continues to evolve, it is important for governments to continue to play a proactive role in technology ethics to address emerging ethical challenges which include:

• Protecting the public interest: Governments have a responsibility to protect the public interest and ensure that the use of technology is aligned with ethical principles and values. By taking a proactive role in technology ethics, governments can help to prevent harm to individuals and society as a whole.
• Providing guidance and standards: Governments can provide guidance and standards for ethical technology development and use, which can help to create a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for companies and individuals.
• Encouraging innovation: By establishing clear ethical standards, governments can encourage innovation that is aligned with societal values and priorities, which can lead to the development of technologies that have a positive impact on society.

However, slowing down innovation to implement government regulation frameworks can sometimes be slow and cumbersome, which can also mean that this will slow down the pace of technological innovation and make it difficult for companies to compete effectively in a rapidly changing market.(UNISCO, 2021). As rapid technological change can create winners and losers, with some people and communities benefiting from new opportunities and others being left behind. This can exacerbate inequality and social divisions and this would definitely have an economical effect on the advancement of the technology industry in the local region, as discussed by Atkinson and Wu (2019) in their book “The Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy.” Atkinson and Wu (2019).

On the other hand, limiting freedom and creativity through over-regulation can limit the freedom and creativity of companies and individuals, and stifle innovation in the technology industry. Further, overburdening small businesses with government regulation can be particularly burdensome for small businesses that may not have the resources, specially financial, to comply with complex regulations and standards and that could lead to discouragement on their end (UNISCO, 2021).

 Lack of Oversight and Acceptance of Responsibility

The lack of transparency in government decision-making processes is a major factor to consider when determining the effectiveness of government intervention as noted by Schacter and Tham (2017), “Without transparency, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, there can be no democracy” (p. 277). This can lead to a lack of trust in government and undermine the democratic process and could certainly have various negative and discouraging effects on the industry as well as local economy if the developers feel that they would be better off moving their business or operations elsewhere.

Another ethical issue is the failure of government officials to take responsibility for their actions. As argued by Johnston  & Haley (2017), “When public officials fail to take responsibility for their mistakes, they erode public trust in government and damage the legitimacy of democratic institutions” (p. 14). This can lead to a culture of impunity and a lack of accountability for government actions. The cultural effect when it comes to impunity and lack of responsibility could also extend its effects to various other sectors of society as it could create divisions and social inequalities between social classes.

A related issue is the lack of oversight of government activities. As noted by Bovens (2017), “Effective oversight is essential for ensuring that government actions are consistent with ethical and legal standards” (p. 154). However, the lack of effective independent oversight and precise accountability can result in abuses of power and violations of human rights. According to a study by Rothstein and Teorell (2017), “corruption and political favoritism in government are often facilitated by the absence of independent oversight mechanisms” (p. 197). This means that without independent oversight, there is a higher likelihood of corruption and abuse of power without it being reported or detected in many cases. This can lead to a situation where certain groups benefit at the expense of others, creating inequalities and injustices. Similarly, a study by Bovens (2017) argues that “effective oversight is essential for ensuring that government actions are consistent with ethical and legal standards” (p. 154). Without this oversight, there is a higher likelihood of government actions that violate these standards, resulting in violations of human rights.

There are concerns about the impact of the lack of oversight and acceptance of responsibility on vulnerable communities. As argued by Enns  & Dobbin (2017), “When governments fail to take responsibility for their actions and lack effective oversight, it is often the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society who suffer the consequences” (p. 85). The vulnerable communities might be at a greater risk if they feel discriminated against leading them to self-harm in terms of increase in crime as well as reduced standards of education from within leading to the stall of their development as a community.

Ethical Issues From Using of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Government Perspective

The leading ethical issue is the potential for bias and discrimination in AI algorithms, particularly when they are used to make decisions that affect people’s lives. As noted by Mittelstadt et al. (2019), “AI systems used in government decision-making are often trained on biased data, which can lead to unfair outcomes for certain groups” (p. 213). This can reinforce existing inequalities and exacerbate discrimination against marginalized communities. The bias generally can result from the development of the AI algorithms as they may be biased developed or developed based on research that is not treated or adjusted for bias in the data collection process.

Another ethical issue is the transparency and accountability of AI systems. As noted by Weller  & Finn (2019), “The opaque nature of many AI algorithms and models can make it difficult to understand how decisions are being made and to ensure that they are fair and just” (p. 63). This can lead to a lack of trust in government decisions and erode democratic principles. The AI models generally are developed in a way that makes it hard to determine the decision making process and set boundaries to it, making the boundaries and limits on the decisions very vague is what generally makes AI models more successful which is also at the same time quite counterproductive as it gives the model a more of a “if-else” scenario compared to a smart look where it can make decisions for more complex scenarios without much human intervention. However, AI models should be self-learning and self-healing from a perspective of human intervention, in other works, the models should account for “wrong” decisions and avoid them in similar scenarios in the future.

A related issue is the need to ensure that AI systems are used for the public good and do not serve narrow interests. As argued by Crawford  & Calo (2016), “The use of AI in government must be guided by principles of social responsibility, human rights, and democratic accountability” (p. 351). This requires clear ethical frameworks and guidelines for the development and deployment of AI systems in government along with independent review and analysis that comes with transparent reporting of the models and their shortfalls. This presents a true picture of the advantages and disadvantages of the system and gives more trust to the users and encourages them to use the technology.

Finally, there are concerns about the impact of AI on jobs and the labor market. As noted by Brynjolfsson  & Mitchell (2017), “AI has the potential to automate many jobs and change the nature of work, leading to significant economic and social upheaval” (p. 3). This raises ethical questions about the responsibility of governments to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared equitably and that workers are not left behind. According to a report by the World Economic Forum (WEF) (2018), “the adoption of AI and automation technologies could lead to significant job displacement, with up to 75 million jobs lost by 2022” (p. 4). This means that without appropriate government intervention, many workers could be left without employment or with inadequate support to transition to new jobs which would result in a massive economic change and could lead to a decrease in standard of living.

Moreover, there is a risk that the benefits of AI and automation will be concentrated among a small group of individuals and organizations, exacerbating existing inequalities. As noted by Brynjolfsson and Mitchell (2017), “the economic benefits of new technologies have not been evenly distributed, and there is a risk that this pattern will be repeated with AI and automation” (p. 44). This means that without government action, the benefits of AI could be limited to a select few, rather than being shared equitably among society as a whole. This certainly leads us to recognizing that regardless of the popular opinion which is that the government intervention could be limiting, it certainly can be of highly beneficial role in terms of making the AI and automation processes more affordable which in turn will increase the exposure of the technologies to less financially stable sectors of society.

Additionally, the use of AI and automation raises important ethical considerations related to privacy, bias, and discrimination. As noted by Jobin, Ienca,  & Vayena (2019), “the development and deployment of AI must be guided by ethical principles to ensure that these technologies are used in a way that respects human rights and promotes the public good” (p. 38). Without appropriate government regulation and oversight, there is a risk that AI and automation could be used in ways that violate these ethical principles, leading to negative consequences for individuals and society as a whole. However, under strict standards and with extensive development of a fair use policy, the risks can be further mitigated and transparent reporting along with effective education would result in more acceptance of the risks and would reduce the negative press related to AI and automation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rapid pace of technological change has outpaced the ability of governments to keep up with developing and improving the frameworks and policies that would regulate the ethical implications of technology. As a result, governments are increasingly being called upon to take action to ensure technology ethics. The ethical challenges posed by technology, including privacy, security, and the impact of technology on society, are complex and require a balanced approach that involves both self-regulation and government regulation.While self-regulation and co-regulation can be effective in certain situations, government regulation is the most effective way to ensure technology ethics is implemented by developers, as it provides a clear set of ethical standards that companies must adhere to, backed by the force of law in terms of clear set consequences to any breaches of the framework implemented by the government. However, the government regulation approach must be balanced bearing in mind that there will be continuous innovation ; thus, the frameworks and policies must be adaptable to new technologies as they emerge. The ideal approach would be more of a proactive approach by continuously ensuring that government officials seek the input from researchers and preparing potential changes to regulations ahead of time.

Theoretically, technology ethics, would need various regulation frameworks to ensure that the developers and users as well as service providers preserve the rights of each other. Government intervention in terms of regulations as well as penalties and consequences is essential to ensure compliance. However, that would be simply in theory and rather far from practical. As from a practical perspective, it would be extremely difficult to regular technology ethics to an extent that there is a very low chance of misuse of technology as much as that could be considered essential. This is because the extreme levels of regulations and the demand for compliance would also serve as a detterant to various developers, users, and service providers making it difficult to advance and encourage further development of the field. A balances approach is more practical as it would help the industry to advance, and it would allow a more diverse sector of the users take advantage of the technology as they would feel that their human rights would be preserved, and their safety is not at risk as data is safe and their privacy is preserved. The developers and businesses would be more encouraged as well to further develop the technology in the benefit of their financial gain as well as their end users, and then furthermore the that would come back as a benefit to the society. Considering that, the balanced approach is a more suitable and more responsible approach to technology ethics regulation.

Greater collaboration between government, industry, and civil society is necessary and vital to address the ethical challenges posed by technology. By working together, we can ensure that technology is developed and used in a way that benefits society as a whole and that respects the ethical principles that underpin our democracy. However, it would be fair to mention that due to the continuous development of the technology industry and the continuous changes in the emerging markets of technology, there are various limitations on the studies in terms of their exposure as well as the context in which they were conducted in. Continuous reference to research studies on the technology ethics subject would be necessary as they would also continuously change as well as they would have different scopes depending on the matters they are researching and the matters they are looking to gain insight on.

References

Bovens, M. (2017). The ethics of accountability in public administration. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Scandinavian Politics (pp. 153-162). Routledge.

Brey, P. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0144-4

Brey, P. (2012). Ethics of technology innovation. In J. Van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design (pp. 331-348). Springer.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science, 358(6370), 1530-1534.

Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election.

California Legislative Information. SB-568 Pupil rights: bullying. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB568

Cheng & Wang. (2019).

Crown Prosecution Service. Communications Offences. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences

Diamantopoulou, V., and Karyda, M. (2022). “Integrating Privacy-By-Design with Business Process Redesign. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13106.

Department of Health, Australian Government. (n.d.). COVIDSafe. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/resources/apps-and-tools/covidsafe-app.

Eleni, C and Kalypso, J. (2021) Democracy Under Attack: Challenges of Addressing Ethical Issues of AI and Big Data for More Democratic Digital Media and Societies. Front. Polit. Sci. 3:682945.

Enns, P. K., & Dobbin, F. (2017). Accountability, responsibility, and rights: Exploring ethical dimensions of social policy. Social Service Review, 91(1), 81-108.

European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

Federal Trade Commission. (2021). Privacy & security. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/privacy-security

Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press.

Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press.

Floridi, L. (2016). Information ethics: A historical perspective. The Oxford Handbook of Information Ethics, 11-35.

Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2018). What is data ethics? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 1-19. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2018.0083

Friedewald, M., & Müller, J. (2013). Towards a Theory of Privacy by Design. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(2), 103-115.

Friedewald, M., Schreier, M., & Raab, C. D. (2021). The politics of contact tracing: Privacy, surveillance and trust. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab001

Government of Canada. Criminal harassment (stalking). https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/ht.html

Government Technology Agency of Singapore. (n.d.). TraceTogether. Retrieved from https://www.tracetogether.gov.sg/

Hickey, H., & Isidore, C. (2019). Boeing’s 737 Max crisis: what happened, what’s next. CNN Business. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/business/boeing-737-max-explainer/index.html

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.

Johnston, C., & Haley, B. (2017). The importance of responsibility in public administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 13-26.

Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2010). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 263-282.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

Martinho, A., Herber, N., Kroesen, M., & Chorus, C. (2021). “Ethical Issues in Focus by the autonomous vehicles industry”. Transport Reviews, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 556-577.

Miller, S., and Yen, J. (2019). Governance of AI and robotics: Technological, ethical and legal aspects. The AI & Robotics Policy Conference, 19(1), 1-9.

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2019). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 6(2), 2053951719846260.

Müller, V. C. (2020). “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2020 Edition). Editor E. N. Zalta

National Health Service. (n.d.). NHS COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing/get-tested-for-coronavirus/nhs-test-and-trace-if-youve-been-in-contact-with-a-person-who-has-coronavirus/

National Information Society Agency of South Korea. (n.d.). Corona 100m. Retrieved from https://corona100m.korea.kr/

Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157.

Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.

OECD. (2013). Best Practice Principles for Self-Regulation in the Digital Environment. OECD.

Robert Koch Institute. (n.d.). Corona-Warn-App. Retrieved from https://www.coronawarn.app/en/

Schacter, M., & Tham, J. (2017). Transparency and accountability in public administration. In C. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp. 1-7). Springer.

Solove, D. J., & Citron, D. K. (2014). Privacy harms. Harvard Law Review, 126(4), 1904-1939.

Stefanovic, T., Ghilezan, S. (2021). “Differential Privacy and Applications”. Logic and Applications, Vol. 52.

Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

UNESCO. “Ethics in a Digital World: A Handbook for Decision Makers.” 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375649.

van den Hoven, J. (2020). Ethics and technology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/ethics-technology/

Weller, K., & Finn, R. L. (2019). Algorithmic transparency in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 62-75.

Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Zimmer, M. (2010). Privacy and Disclosure in a Digital Environment. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics (pp. 369-390). Wiley-Blackwell.

Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It. Yale University Press.

Image Credits:  https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/roles-and-responsibilities-of-government/