You are here

Home

A Perspective on Human Tracking by Oregon State U. Students


Introduction
GIS Professionals' Responsibility: Code of Ethics
Public Responsibility: The Manhattan Project: An Analogous Situation
Works Cited
Definitions: Geoslavery, GIS, GISci
Post or View Comments

Introduction
This section deals with the question of what is needed in GIS to make it more ethical with respect to human tracking. In the eyes of some GIS professionals, this is a pertinent issue that needs to be acknowledged by both the GIS community of users and the public. Arguably, the principle issue is that of using the technology ethically. This concern has already been addressed by the GIS community through the creation of a GIS Code of Ethics. The purpose of this code is to unify the discipline – both internally and in the eyes of the public. Dobson (2000) argues that the power and knowledge of GIS are so great as to endanger contemporary societal values, individual freedom, and civil obedience. If this is the case, then these issues are not for the GIS professionals to deal with alone, but concern the global public. It is impossible to undo the technology currently available. The proliferation of tracking devices in common electronic objects implies that the public currently accepts applications of this technology. Thus, maybe the issue is not what is to be done about the technology, but what is to be done about societal ethics in order to stop unethical human tracking and social injustices in general.

GIS Professionals' Responsibility
Code of Ethics
As stated by Craig et al. (2005) the purpose for creating a GIS Code of Ethics is “to provide guidelines for GIS (geographic information system) professionals” so as to help then “make appropriate and ethical choices,” evaluate “their work from an ethical point of view,” and “to preserve and enhance public trust in the discipline.” The introduction to the Code asserts that its rationale is to provide a framework for treating people with respect; a deontological guide, where one’s moral obligation is to act under predetermined guidelines. The Code attempts a “positive tone,” wherein the examples and guidelines provided are positive, rather than listing actions to avoid. Rudimentarily using Frankel’s template, Huxhold and Craig (2003) focus on the altruistic aspects.

Four ethical paradigms are provided to aid GIS professionals in decisions: virtue ethics, utilitarianism, Kantianism, and deontology.

  • Virtue Ethics is a system wherein one attempts to adhere to the characteristics of a “virtuous” person, focusing not on specific actions but on the whole person.
  • Utilitarianism strives to maximize the greatest amount of “happiness” for the largest percentage of people possible.
  • The aspect of Kantianism highlighted in the GIS professional’s Code of Ethics is the principle of universalism in that applications of the maxims can be consistently applied to similar circumstances by all people.
  • Deontology is concerned with duties and rights and the application of defined principles to all acts. The basic tenant of deontology is that to abide by these universal principles is to act in an ethical manner, regardless of a positive or negative outcome. It is unclear, then, according to this definition, why Craig characterizes the Code’s adherence to deontology as to “Always treat other persons as ends, never as means” (Huxhold and Craig 2003).

The GIS Code of Ethics sets forth prescribed behavioral standards regarding obligations to society, to employers and funders, to colleagues and the profession, and to individuals within society. The obligations to society address how GIS work will impact both individual subgroups of society and society as a whole. This entails doing the best work possible in an objective fashion; thus, the information provided must be accurate and made available to the public. Additionally, the GIS professional must be aware of both the positive and negative consequences associated with their work. A GIS professional’s obligation to their employers and/or funders requires delivering quality work and maintaining professional relationships. Under the heading “Obligations to Colleagues and the Profession,” plagiarism and intellectual property are highlighted, as is the duty to contribute to the discipline by publishing results. Finally, one’s obligation towards individuals within society calls for respecting the privacy of individuals and allowing them the freedom to choose whether or not to be part of a database and, in choosing to be included, to modify their personal information.

The Code, which asserts that information should be kept confidential pending authorization, stresses the dissemination of data. This discord is in the forefront when dealing with the concept of unethical human tracking. To what extent can data and technology be shared without endangering the freedom of individuals?

Back to Top

Public Responsibility
The Manhattan Project: An Analogous Situation
It seems that in addressing the issue of human tracking it would be beneficial to draw comparisons between another scientific technology that has fostered ethical debates: the atomic bomb. The cause for alarm in Dobson (2000) and Dobson and Fisher (2003) stems from the technology and how it will be used for evil. In many ways, the picture of the world painted by these articles similar to that at the conclusion of WWII (as alluded to in Francis Harvey's first presentation). The technology enabling evil acts exists and the potential for negative impacts on a global scale is very real. It can be argued that by discovering the technologies, scientists are to take social responsibility for their discoveries; moreover, GIS professionals are held responsible for the destructive capabilities of the technology.

In order to fully understand the contemporary situation involving GIS, it is necessary to comprehend the issues scientists faced at the end of the WWII. After the war, scientists understood that the situation in which they had participated had produced a crisis of social responsibility. Percy Bridgman challenged the notion that individual scientists were to be responsible for the consequences of their discoveries, a common public opinion after the war (Schweber 2000). The public, and many of the younger generation of scientists, felt that it was a moral obligation of scientists that discoveries and advancements be beneficent; however, Bridgman argued that it was society who should be held responsible for the results of scientific discoveries (Schweber 2000). While allowing for some amount of guilt to be placed on them, the scientific community was not willing to house all of the blame. Science does not exist in a vacuum. Although kept a secret, the Manhattan Project was made possible by research grants, government funding, and public support. At the end of 1945 a survey published in Fortune magazine showed that over 50 percent of respondents backed the actions of the United States, with another 23 percent regretting that more fission bombs were not dropped on Japan (Badash 1995). Badash further speculates, “Such sentiments might have been reinforced had the American public known at that time of the significant, but mismanaged, German bomb project and the much smaller Japanese nuclear effort, both of which failed in their goal” (1995, 58).

Newspaper reports following the detonation of the atomic bombs attempted to simplify the scientific concepts so as to educate the public about the enormity of the situation. Although this dissemination of information was positive, it can be argued that in highlighting the scientific accomplishments of nuclear fission – rather than political or military tactics – scientists shouldered most, if not all, of the moral and ethical responsibility. Scientists subsequently focus on the role of humanity in science. Victor Weisskopf asserted:

We scientists are optimists. We believe that rational though and planning will be able to rectify the ills that technology has caused. We believe that, at the end, much good will come from the applications of science. But science does not only influence our physical environment, it also creates our mental environment. It has deep influence on our thinking and our outlook; it is an integral part of our civilization. It is an activity in which our modern culture has been most creative and successful...It is a human quest because it is the cause of humanity as a whole. Whatever your viewpoint, it is good to know more (Weisskopf 1970, 29).

Weisskopf (1970) argued that science has the ability to influence worldviews. In much the same way, GIS as emerging technology and GISci as a new discipline are able to influence public perceptions. This is not an effect to be taken lightly; GIS professionals have an obligation to the public. This obligation, as stated by the Code of Ethics, is to make data publicly available whenever possible; thus increasing public and individual knowledge.

Pure knowledge is not bad; rather, it is the application of knowledge that can have positive or negative consequences. GIS does not create conditions for or situations of human tracking. It does not necessarily enable it. It has been argued that GIS facilitates an unequal power hierarchy between the “haves” and “have not’s,” which is in many ways similar to the situation the world was facing after the creation of nuclear weapons. Robert Oppenheimer wrote:

We have made a thing, a most terrible weapon, that altered abruptly and profoundly the nature of the world. We have made a thing that by all the standards of the world we grew up in is an evil thing. And by doing so, by our participation in making it possible, we have raised again the question of whether science is good for men, of whether it is good to learn about the world, to try to understand it, to try to control it, to help give to the world of men increased insight, increased power…Because we are scientists, we must say an unalterable yes to these questions: it is our faith and our commitment, seldom made explicit, even more seldom challenged, that knowledge is a good in itself, knowledge and such power as must come with it.” (Oppenheimer 1946, 7)

Belief in this position argues for knowledge as being good and as secrecy antithetical to scientific and societal growth. Teller stated, “There is no case where ignorance should be preferred to knowledge – especially if the knowledge is terrible” (Schweber 2000, 16). Feynman (1958) lectured, “I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value.” Knowledge allows people to make informed decisions and many scientists involved with the Manhattan project believed that reason enabled moral decisions (Schweber 2000).

To refer to the contemporary situation of GIS technologies and the potential for human tracking, an argument could be made that the Code of Ethics, by promoting the dissemination of data while maintaining individual rights of privacy, helps maintain and ethical standard within the community. As public knowledge of the profession (as well as the Code) increases society at large will be more actively engaged in discourses concerning GIS technology and human rights. Drawing negative attention to the potentially unethical uses of the technology will only serve to foster distrust among the public concerning the profession and does not solve anything. Rather, attempts should be made to curb human trafficking, domestic violence, and inequality, regardless of how these practices are enabled.

Back to Top

Works Cited
Badash, L. (1995). Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons. Amherst, Humanity Books.

Dobson, J. (2000) The "G" in GIS: What are the Ethical Limits of GIS? Geoplace.com http://www.geoplace.com/gw/2000/0500/0500g.asp.

Dobson, J. E. and P. F. Fisher, (2003). Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. Spring, pp. 47-52.

Feynman, R. P. (1958). "The Value of Science." Engineering and Science 19: 13-22.

Huxhold, W. a. C., W. (2003). "Certification and Ethics in the GIS Profession." Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 15(1): 51-64.

Institute, G. I. S. C. (2005) A GIS Code of Ethics. http://www.gisci.org/code_of_ethics.htm

Oppenheimer, J. R. (1946). "Atomic Weapons." Proceedings of American Philosophical Society 90(1): 7-10.

Schweber, S. S. (2000). In the Shadow of the Bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Weisskopf, V. F. (1970). “Intellectuals in Government.” In Allen, J. (1970). March 4: Scientists, Students and Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Back to Top | Home

»