Balance or Trade-off? Online Security Technologies and Fundamental Rights

Hildebrandt, Mireille

doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0104-0

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, gaining access to and capturing data involves exactly the kind of cyber-threats to the privacy of information and confidentiality of communication that the first kind of cybersecurity technologies is designed to protect people from. Hildebrandt (2013) observes that the expression 'to balance' can be used in this context to indicate two very different concepts. In the sense of a trade-off, the concept of a balance implies that it is necessary to curtail, imperfectly realise or narrowly specify a right's content in order to achieve a high enough level of security.…”

Section: Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cybersecurity, understood broadly, is usually considered as a whole bundle of technologies and policies to protect the cyber-infrastructure. Following Hildebrandt (2013), we can distinguish three main classes of technology for cybersecurity: technologies that ensure confidentiality of information (including authentication of the intended recipients of communication); technologies that detect and counter online threats and vulnerabilities; and technologies that detect and counter cybercrime such as forgery, fraud, child pornography and copyright violations committed in cyberspace. In each of those application domains, different ethical problems emerge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ethical Frameworks for Cybersecurity

Loi

Christen²

2020

The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter presents several ethical frameworks that are useful for analysing ethical questions of cybersecurity. It begins with two frameworks that are important in practice: the principlist framework employed in the Menlo Report on cybersecurity research and the rights-based principle that is influential in the law, in particular EU law. It is argued that since the harms and benefits caused by cybersecurity operations and policies are of a probabilistic nature, both approaches cannot avoid dealing with risk and probability. Therefore, the chapter turns to the ethics of risk, showing that it is a necessary complement to such approaches. The ethics of risk are discussed in more detail by considering two consequentialist approaches (utilitarianism and maximin consequentialism), deontological approaches and contractualist approaches to risk at length, highlighting the difficulties raised by special cases. Finally, Nissenbaum's 'contextual integrity' approach is introduced, which has become an important framework for understanding privacy, both descriptively and normatively. A revised version of this framework is proposed for identifying and ethically assessing changes brought about by cybersecurity measures and policies, not only in relation to privacy but more generally to the key expectations concerning human interactions within the practice.

show abstract

Section: Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Frameworks for Cybersecurity

Loi

Christen²

2020

The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 We recognize that there are more expansive notions of privacy and of the right protecting it, which are particularly relevant in the sphere of online interactions. For example, the right to privacy may be considered an all-encompassing right that provides protection to almost all aspects of identity, personhood, and dignity (Hildebrandt 2013). 4 The concept of privacy as access has, however, an important history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Concepts of Group Privacy

Loi

Christen

2019

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Luciano Floridi was not the first to discuss the idea of group privacy, but he was perhaps the first to discuss it in relation to the insights derived from big data analytics. He has argued that it is important to investigate the possibility that groups have rights to privacy that are not reducible to the privacy of individuals forming such groups. In this paper, we introduce a distinction between two concepts of group privacy. The first, the Bwhat happens in Vegas stays in Vegas^privacy (in the following: WHVSV privacy), deals with confidential information shared with the member of a group and inaccessible to (all or a specific group of) outsiders. The second, to which we shall refer as inferential privacy, deals with the inferences that can be made about a group of people defined by a feature, or combination thereof, shared by all individuals in the group. We show why we unreservedly agree with Floridi that groups can have a form of privacy that amounts to more than the mere fact of being sets of individuals each of whom has individual privacy; moreover, like Floridi, we find it plausible that at least some groups (those satisfying our definition of type-a groups) may have a right to a species of group privacy (that is, WHVSV privacy) as groups (and not just as individuals who belong to those groups). However, by turning our attention to the context of big data analytics, we show that the relevant, new notion of group privacy is one of inferential privacy. We argue that an absolute right (either of individuals or groups) to inferential privacy is implausible. We also show that many groups generated algorithmically (those satisfying our definition of type-b groups) cannot be right holders as groups (unless they become type-a groups).

show abstract

“…Following the call for smart technologies in our current society (Hildebrandt, 2013) ranging from smart cities to smart medicines and from smart meters to smart carsa relatively new phenomenon in the agricultural sector is the application of smart farming technologies (Reichardt, Jürgens, Klöbe, Hüter, & Moser, 2009). By the integration of smart technology and the internet of thingsin which computers, censoring devices, GPS systems but also robots and even animals communicate with one another and function autonomously in an integrated farm management systemfarmers can reduce farm inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) and increase yields, while reducing emissions to the environment (Bos & Munnichs, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Technologies as Living Machines: Toward a Biomimetic Conceptualization of Smart Farming Technologies

Blok

Gremmen

2018

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart Farming Technologies raise ethical issues associated with the increased corporatization and industrialization of the agricultural sector. We explore the concept of biomimicry to conceptualize smart farming technologies as ecological innovations which are embedded in and in accordance with the natural environment. Such a biomimetic approach of smart farming technologies takes advantage of its potential to mitigate climate change, while at the same time avoiding the ethical issues related to the industrialization of the agricultural sector. We explore six principles of a natural concept of biomimicry and apply these principles in the context of smart farming technologies.

show abstract

Balance or Trade-off? Online Security Technologies and Fundamental Rights

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

Ethical Frameworks for Cybersecurity

Ethical Frameworks for Cybersecurity

Two Concepts of Group Privacy

Agricultural Technologies as Living Machines: Toward a Biomimetic Conceptualization of Smart Farming Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About