ETHICS+IN+SECURITY

=**Information ethics**=

is the field that investigates the ethical issues arising from the development and application of information technologies. It provides a critical framework for considering moral issues concerning informational [|privacy], moral agency (e.g. whether artificial agents may be moral), new environmental issues (especially how agents should one behave in the [|infosphere]), problems arising from the life-cycle (creation, collection, recording, distribution, processing, etc.) of information (especially ownership and copyright, [|digital divide]). Information Ethics is related to the fields of [|computer ethics] [|[][|1][|]] and the [|philosophy of information]. Dilemmas regarding the life of information are becoming increasingly important in a society that is defined as "the information society". Information transmission and literacy are essential concerns in establishing an ethical foundation that promotes fair, equitable, and responsible practices. Information ethics broadly examines issues related to ownership, access, privacy, security, and community. Information technology affects fundamental rights involving copyright protection, intellectual freedom, accountability, and security. Professional codes offer a basis for making ethical decisions and applying ethical solutions to situations involving information provision and use which reflect an organization’s commitment to responsible information service. Evolving information formats and needs require continual reconsideration of ethical principles and how these codes are applied. Considerations regarding information ethics influence “personal decisions, professional practice, and [|public policy]”.[|[][|2][|]] Therefore, ethical analysis must provide a framework to take into consideration “many, diverse domains” (ibid.) regarding how information is distributed. The main, peer-reviewed, academic journal in information ethics is [|//Ethics and Information Technology//], published by Springer.

=**Stakeholder** may refer to:= = = = = =STAKEHOLDER=
 * [|Stakeholder (corporate)], a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions
 * [|Consumer stakeholder], a person or group with an interest in a particular category of product or service
 * [|Project stakeholder], a person, group or organization with an interest in a project
 * [|Stakeholder theory], a theory that identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a corporation or project
 * [|Stakeholder analysis], the process of identifying those affected by a project or event
 * [|Stakeholder (law)], a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined

For other uses, see [|Stakeholder (disambiguation)]. Internal and external stakeholders of a company A corporate **stakeholder** is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[|[][|1][|]] The theory was later developed and championed by [|R. Edward Freeman] in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to [|strategic management], [|corporate governance], [|business purpose] and [|corporate social responsibility] (CSR). The term has been broadened to include anyone who has an interest in a matter. = =

Examples of a company's stakeholders
= =
 * ~ Stakeholders ||~ Examples of interests ||
 * **Government** || taxation, [|VAT], [|legislation], low unemployment, tuthful reporting ||
 * **Employees** || rates of pay, [|job security], compensation, respect, truthful communication ||
 * **Customers** || value, quality, customer care, ethical products ||
 * **Suppliers** || providers of products and services used in the end product for the customer, equitable business opportunities ||
 * **Creditors** || credit score, new contracts, liquidity ||
 * **Community** || jobs, involvement, environmental protection, shares, truthful communication ||
 * **Trade Unions** || quality, Staff protection, jobs ||

Types of stakeholders

 * People who will be affected by an endeavor and can influence it but who are not directly involved with doing the work.
 * In the [|private sector], People who are (or might be) affected by any action taken by an organization or group. Examples are parents, children, customers, owners, employees, associates, partners, contractors, suppliers, people that are related or located near by. Any group or individual who can affect or who is affected by achievement of a group's objectives.
 * An individual or group with an interest in a group's or an organization's success in delivering intended results and in maintaining the viability of the group or the organization's product and/or service. Stakeholders influence programs, products, and services.
 * Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention, energy conservation, etc.
 * A participant in a community mobilization effort, representing a particular segment of society. School board members, environmental organizations, elected officials, chamber of commerce representatives, neighborhood advisory council members, and religious leaders are all examples of local stakeholders.
 * Internal Stakeholders** - Market (or Primary) Stakeholders are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees)
 * External Stakeholders** - NonMarket (or Secondary) Stakeholders are those who - although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business - are affected by or can affect its actions. (For example the general public, communities,activist groups, business support groups, and the media)

Company stakeholder mapping
A narrow mapping of a company's stakeholders might identify the following stakeholders: A broader mapping of a company's stakeholders may also include: = =
 * [|Employees]
 * [|Communities]
 * [|Shareholders]
 * [|Creditors]
 * [|Investors]
 * [|Government]
 * [|Customers]
 * [|Suppliers]
 * [|Labor unions]
 * Government regulatory agencies
 * Government legislative bodies
 * Government tax-collecting agencies
 * [|Industry trade groups]
 * [|Professional associations]
 * [|NGOs] and other [|advocacy groups]
 * Prospective employees
 * Prospective customers
 * [|Local communities]
 * National communities
 * Public at Large (Global Community)
 * [|Competitors]
 * [|Schools]
 * Future generations
 * Analysts and Media
 * Alumni (Ex-employees)
 * Research centers
 * Each Person

In corporate responsibility
In the field of [|corporate governance] and [|corporate responsibility], a major debate is ongoing about whether the firm or company should be managed for stakeholders, stockholders ([|shareholders]), or [|customers]. Proponents in favour of stakeholders may base their arguments on the following four key assertions: 1) [|Value] can best be created by trying to maximize joint outcomes. For example, according to this thinking, programs that satisfy both employees' [|needs] and stockholders' [|wants] are doubly valuable because they address two legitimate sets of stakeholders at the same time. There is even evidence that the combined effects of such a policy are not only additive but even multiplicative. For instance, by simultaneously addressing customer wishes in addition to employee and stockholder interests, both of the latter two groups also benefit from increased sales. 2) Supporters also take issue with the preeminent role given to stockholders by many business thinkers, especially in the past. The argument is that debt holders, employees, and suppliers also make contributions and take risks in creating a successful firm. 3) These [|normative] arguments would matter little if [|stockholders] ([|shareholders]) had complete control in guiding the firm. However, many believe that due to certain kinds of [|board of directors] structures, top managers like [|CEOs] are mostly in control of the firm. 4) The greatest value of a company is its image and brand. By attempting to fulfill the needs and wants of many different people ranging from the local population and customers to their own employees and owners, companies can prevent damage to their image and brand, prevent losing large amounts of sales and disgruntled customers, and prevent costly legal expenses. While the stakeholder view has an increased cost, many firms have decided that the concept improves their image, increases sales, reduces the risks of liability for [|corporate negligence], and makes them less likely to be targeted by [|pressure groups], campaigning groups and [|NGOs]. = =

=Luciano Floridi=

According to Floridi, it is necessary to develop a constructionist philosophy, where design, modelling and implementation replace analysis and dissection. Shifting from one set of tasks to the other, philosophy could then stop retreating into the increasingly small corner of its self-sustaining investigations, and hence re-acquire a wider view about what really matters. Slowly, Floridi has come to characterise his constructionist philosophy as an innovative field, now known as the [|philosophy of information], the new area of research that has emerged from the computational/informational turn. Floridi approaches the [|philosophy of information] from two perspectives: For example, in the Preface of //Philosophy and Computing//, published in 1999, he wrote that the book was meant for two kinds of philosophy students: those who need to acquire some IT literacy in order to use computers efficiently, and those who may be interested in acquiring the background knowledge indispensable for developing a critical understanding of our digital age and hence beginning to work on that would-be branch of philosophy, the [|philosophy of information], which he hoped may one day become part of //Philosophia Prima//. Since then, PI, or PCI (Philosophy of Computing and Information), has become his major research interest. Floridi's perspective is that there is a need for a broader concept of information processing and flowing, which includes [|computation], but not only computation. This new framework provides a very robust theoretical frame within which to place and make sense of the different lines of research that have taken shape since the fifties. The second advantage is PI’s diachronic perspective, a perspective on the development of philosophy through time. In his view, PI gives us a much wider and more profound perspective on what philosophy might have actually been doing. Currently, Floridi is working on two areas of research: [|computer ethics] (see the entry [|information ethics]) and the concept of [|information]. Key to this area of work is the claim that ICT ([|Information and Communications Technology]) is radically [|re-engineering] or [|re-ontologizing] the [|infosphere].
 * the purely theoretical perspective provided by [|logic] and [|epistemology], and
 * the technical perspective provided by [|computer science], [|IT] and [|Humanities Computing].

The **philosophy of information** (PI) is the area of research that studies conceptual issues arising at the intersection of [|computer science], [|information technology], and [|philosophy]. It includes:[|[][|1][|]]
 * 1) the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of [|information], including its dynamics, utilisation and sciences
 * 2) the elaboration and application of information-theoretic and computational methodologies to philosophical problems.

Major branches of ethics include:
 * Ethics** (also known as **moral philosophy**) is a branch of [|philosophy] that addresses questions about [|morality]—that is, concepts such as [|good and evil], right and wrong, [|virtue] and [|vice], [|justice], etc.
 * [|Meta-ethics], about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their [|truth-values] (if any) may be determined;
 * [|Normative ethics], about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
 * [|Applied ethics], about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
 * [|Moral psychology], about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is; and
 * [|Descriptive ethics], about what moral values people actually abide by.

Applied ethics is distinguished from [|normative ethics], which concerns what people should believe to be right and wrong, and from [|meta-ethics], which concerns the nature of moral statements. An emerging typology for applied ethics (Porter, 2006) uses six domains to help improve organizations and social issues at the national and global level:
 * Applied ethics** is, in the words of Brenda Almond, co-founder of the Society for Applied Philosophy, "the philosophical examination, from a moral standpoint, of particular issues in private and public life that are matters of moral judgment". It is thus a term used to describe attempts to use philosophical methods to identify the morally correct course of action in various fields of human life. [|Bioethics], for example, is concerned with identifying the correct approach to matters such as euthanasia, or the allocation of scarce health resources, or the use of human embryos in research. [|Environmental ethics] is concerned with questions such as the duties of humans towards landscapes or species. [|Business ethics] concerns questions such as the limits on managers in the pursuit of profit, or the duty of 'whistleblowers' to the general public as opposed to their employers. As such, it is a study which is supposed to involve practitioners as much as professional philosophers.[|[][|1][|]]
 * Decision ethics, or ethical theories and ethical decision processes
 * Professional ethics, or ethics to improve professionalism
 * Clinical ethics, or ethics to improve our basic health needs
 * Business ethics, or individual based morals to improve ethics in an organization
 * Organizational ethics, or ethics among organizations
 * Social ethics, or ethics among nations and as one global unit

Much of applied ethics is concerned with just three theories: One modern approach which attempts to overcome the seemingly impossible divide between deontology and utilitarianism is [|case-based reasoning], also known as [|casuistry]. Casuistry does not begin with theory, rather it starts with the immediate facts of a real and concrete case. While casuistry makes use of ethical theory, it does not view ethical theory as the most important feature of moral reasoning. Casuists, like Albert Jonsen and [|Stephen Toulmin] (//The Abuse of Casuistry// 1988), challenge the traditional [|paradigm] of applied ethics. Instead of starting from theory and applying theory to a particular case, casuists start with the particular case itself and then ask what morally significant features (including both theory and practical considerations) ought to be considered for that particular case. In their observations of medical ethics committees, Jonsen and Toulmin note that a consensus on particularly problematic moral cases often emerges when participants focus on the facts of the case, rather than on [|ideology] or [|theory]. Thus, a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an agnostic might agree that, in this particular case, the best approach is to withhold extraordinary medical care, while disagreeing on the reasons that support their individual positions. By focusing on cases and not on theory, those engaged in moral debate increase the possibility of agreement.
 * 1) [|utilitarianism], where the practical consequences of various policies are evaluated on the assumption that the right policy will be the one which results in the greatest happiness
 * 2) [|deontological ethics], notions based on 'rules' i.e. that there is an obligation to perform the 'right' action, regardless of actual consequences (epitomized by Kant's notion of the [|Categorical Imperative])
 * 3) [|virtue ethics], derived from Aristotle's and Confucius's notions, which asserts that the right action will be that chosen by a suitably 'virtuous' agent.