Ethics Inf Technol (2010) 12:187–193
DOI 10.1007/s10676-010-9219-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
PAPA knows best: Principles for the ethical sharing
of information on social networking sites
James L. Parrish Jr.
Published online: 13 February 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract The advent of social networking sites has
changed the face of the information society Mason wrote of
23 years ago necessitating a reevaluation of the social
contracts designed to protect the members of the society.
Despite the technological and societal changes that have
happened over the years, the information society is still
based on the exchange of information. This paper examines
various historical events involving social networking sites
through the lens of the PAPA framework (Mason 1986) to
highlight select ethical issues regarding the sharing of
information in the social-networking age. Four preliminary
principles are developed to guide the ethical use of social
networking sites (SNS).
Keywords IS ethics
PAPA
Social networking sites
Introduction
‘‘Our moral imperative is clear. We must ensure that
information technology and the information that it
handles, are used to enhance the dignity of mankind.
To achieve these goals we must formulate a new
social contract, one that ensures that everyone has the
right to fulfill his or her own human potential (Mason,
1986, p. 11).’’
In 1986, Richard Mason enlightened us to the challenges
we face in the information age and the threats to intellec-
tual capital. The heart of this threat is a broad array of
J. L. Parrish Jr. (&)
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S. University
Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099, USA
e-mail: jlparrish@ualr.edu
ethical issues concerning the information on which the
intellectual capital is built. In particular, Mason would have
us focus on the ethical issues concerning the privacy,
accuracy, property, and accessibility of information (com-
monly referred to by the acronym PAPA). Focusing on
these issues can help those living in the information society
construct the social contract by which to deal with the
threats to their intellectual capital (Mason 1986).
In the 23 years since Mason penned this ethical frame-
work, one must stop to wonder if he could foresee just how
‘social’ the social contract would become. Today, social
networking sites (SNS) such as Twitter, Facebook,
MySpace, YouTube, and Flickr allow people to publish and
share information in ways like never before. Additionally,
the proliferation of mobile devices such web-enabled cell
phones allow for the instantaneous collection of informa-
tion for sharing on these sites. For example, a person can
take a picture or video of an event, post it to a media-
sharing site, and write about it in a blog, or post a comment
on a SNS in almost real time as the event unfolds.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the cover-
age of the 2009 Iranian elections. After a landslide victory
by the incumbent president, in an election believed by
many to be closely contested, hundreds of thousands of
protesters took to the streets to dispute the results.
Although the international media was blocked from
reporting on the events, the story was still relayed in the
form of web chats, emails, posted videos to YouTube and,
most notably, 140 characters or less micro-blog posts or
‘‘tweets’’ to the social networking site Twitter. In response
to the public’s use of these sites to relay the protest events,
the government shut down many text messaging systems,
SNS, and Internet sites that supported Mir Hossein
Mousavi, the challenger to incumbent President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. However, despite the efforts of the Iranian
123
188
government, information still managed to find its way out
of Iran via social networks and other technological means
(Johnson and Murphy 2009; Murphy 2009).
This information served as one of the only links between
the events on the ground in Iran and the outside world. In
fact, the images and words were so important to those
around the world following the protests that the U.S. State
Department asked Twitter to delay system upgrades that
might have caused service outages in the Iranian capital
(Landler and Mazetti 2009). Given the impact of this event,
it seems a good look at the use of the posted information is
warranted. Specifically, does the use of this information
violate the social contract Mason advocated that is
designed to protect individuals from such indignities as
having private information revealed without their consent
or having decisions that could affect their personal liveli-
hood or that of others based on said information(Mason
1986)?
The goal of this paper is twofold. The first is to illustrate
some of the ethical issues regarding the sharing of infor-
mation on SNS by examining the information shared in
important world events such as the 2009 Iranian elections
and the U.S. war in Iraq. These events will be examined
through the lens of Mason’s PAPA framework to highlight
issues related to each element. The second goal is to
develop principles that will provide guidance to those who
post to and consume information on SNS and to support the
establishment of norms that will allow better definition of
the social contract that protects individuals in the infor-
mation age.
Social contracts
Extant social contracts such as the one referred to by Mason
are defined by Dunfee (1991, p. 32) as ‘‘existing social
contacts embodying actual behavioral norms which derive
from shared goals, beliefs and attitudes of groups or com-
munities of people’’. The social contracts these communities
create are generally informal arrangements in which the
participants are not bound by an explicit set of rules, rather
they consent to the norms of the group by becoming a part of
or engaging in transactions within the community (Donald-
son and Dunfee 1994; Dunfee 1991). A community is defined
by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, p. 262) as ‘‘a self-defined,
self-circumscribed, group of people who interact in the
context of shared tasks, values, or goals and who are capable
of establishing ethical norms of behavior for themselves’’.
It would be difficult to define a social contract that
would encompass the entirety of SNS much like it would
be difficult to define a social contract to govern all eco-
nomic practice across the globe. This may be because,
much like economic ethics, the ethics that govern SNS are
123
J. L. Parrish Jr.
bounded in part by its artifactual nature. In this sense, an
artifactual system is one created by people and subject to
change by people in the ways they are governed at the local
level (Donaldson and Dunfee 1994). So, what may be
ethically appropriate on one SNS, may not be on another.
This may even be true within a single SNS. Take the
example of the Iranian elections. The people that are
interacting on the site in support or opposition of a par-
ticular political candidate certainly could qualify as a
community given the definition above. However, what of
the casual observer of the situation thousands of miles
away? Do they share the same goals, values, or tasks?
Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) attempt to reconcile this
situation by differentiating the extant social contract into a
macrosocial contract, which are principles shared by all
participants in a system, and a microsocial contract that
specifies ethical norms for the local communities.
According to Donaldson and Dunfee (1994), the general
principles that make up this macrosocial contract are:
1. Local communities may enable microsocial contracts
to establish norms for their members.
2. The microsocial contracts must contain a right to exit
and be grounded in informed consent.
3. The required elements of the microsocial contract must
be compatible with hypernorms.
4. In attempting to satisfy the previous principles, conflict
between norms will be settled by assigning priority to
norms in a manner consistent with the spirit and letter
of the macrosocial contract.
Norms that pass principles 1 and 2, are called authentic
norms. Obligatory norms are authentic norms that also pass
principle 3. The hypernorms referred to in principle 3 are
ethical principles that are fundamental to human existence
such as human rights, freedom, physical security and well-
being, and the obligation to respect human dignity (Don-
aldson and Dunfee 1994). It is apparent that Mason also
considered these hypernorms as he developed the social
contract illustrated in his PAPA framework.
This notion of a macrosocial contract as it relates to
social networking, however, is a bit amorphous in light of
the pace of technological advancement. One of the primary
purposes of SNS is to share information, but do the norms
of this information sharing adhere to the principles of the
macrosocial contract? It is apparent that local communities
have the ability to establish microsocial contracts to govern
them. However, the exit and informed consent in principle
2 is not so clear. The SNS Facebook has experienced some
high profile issues with privacy over the past few years
stemming from its Beacon program that relayed informa-
tion about its user’s visits to third party websites in some
cases even after their accounts had been deactivated. It has
also been accused of allegedly sharing user information
Ethical use of SNS
without proper consent. However, the issue of whether or
not SNS are providing proper informed consent at an
organizational level is a matter of argument and outside the
ethical scope of this paper.
At the individual level, there is little doubt a lack of
informed consent as it relates to the sharing of information
exists. This may not be an issue for individuals acting in a
public space with little expectation of privacy, but it is for
those that are acting in a space where the expectation for
privacy is valid. Imagine that an individual takes pictures at
a private social gathering and posts them to an SNS. What
if a member of the community subscribing to the micro
social contract who is pictured in those images deactivates
their account, do they disappear from the images? What
effect does this have on their right of exit? Furthermore,
what are the chances the person posting the pictures pro-
vides informed consent to every individual captured in the
images? What about those individuals who indicate what
others are doing in their status updates, do they provide
informed consent? These are the actions enabled by the
ability to capture images and text using mobile devices for
direct posting to SNS. While this technological advance-
ment allows individuals to interact with more people and in
more ways than ever before, it also inhibits the formation
of authentic norms within the community on which a
macrosocial contract can be defined.
While the amount and type of information shared can vary
from community to community, it can be argued that sharing
at least some information is obligatory to become part of the
community. It can also be argued that in some cases the
information shared may not be compatible with hypernorms.
As an example, let’s return to the example of the Iranian
elections. Is the picture of a Iranian protester shared on a
SNS, resulting in that person losing their freedom because
they were incarcerated by the ruling party or beaten by sup-
porters of the other candidate, compatible with hypernorms?
One would think that sharing this information in certain
contexts violates some of these basic human principles.
For the reasons presented above, the notion of a social
contract relating to communities as espoused by Donaldson
and Dunfee may be inapplicable to SNS. This paper argues
that the elements affecting ethical principles created for
information sharing on SNS are derived not from the
people involved, but from the information that is shared.
For that reason, the PAPA framework seems to be a rele-
vant foundation from which to develop the aforementioned
ethical principles for information sharing on SNS.
PAPA and social networking
The ethical issues relating to the use of information are
wide ranging in scope and in number. However, Mason
189
(1986) argues that it is important to focus on just four:
privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility. In Mason’s
framework, privacy relates to the information an individual
has to share with others, the safeguards they have to protect
themselves as a result of sharing the information, and the
rights of the individual to not share information at all.
Accuracy addresses the questions of the authenticity of
information, accountability for the authenticity of the
information, and reciprocity as a result of damage done due
to the use of inaccurate information. Issues of information
ownership and exchange are covered in the area of prop-
erty. Finally, accessibility is concerned with those issues
surrounding the access to information (Mason 1986).
Some would argue that the PAPA framework is not
broad enough in scope to deal with the ethical environment
of today. For example, Fairweather (2000) argues that
focusing on the issues related to the four aspects of PAPA
may result in other ethical issues being overlooked and
some areas of information technology do not fit within the
framework. This paper argues PAPA is focused on infor-
mation, rather than information technology and the four
areas covered in PAPA are applicable to all information.
Thus, because PAPA is focused on the more stable nature
of the qualities of information, rather than the dynamic
nature of the technology itself or those who interact with it,
it is an applicable base from which to develop ethical
principles to guide the use of SNS.
Privacy
Mason (1986) writes that two forces threaten our privacy.
One is the advancement in information technology and its
ever-increasing ability to capture, compute, and commu-
nicate information. The other is the value of information to
those who can use it to their advantage. For instance,
mobile computing devices can be and are used to access
SNS from anywhere in the world. However, the real threat
to privacy lies in the fact that the devices can take still
images, record video, text commentary, or any combination
of the three and send it directly to SNS for consumption by
the community. This information is not only valuable to
those that wish to enjoy the benefits provided by SNS, but
also to those that would wish to do us harm. For example,
studies have shown that attempts to gain information from
individuals for purposes of identity theft are significantly
more successful if information about the target’s social
context is used (Jagatic et al. 2007). This demonstrates the
importance of taking steps to ensure the privacy of the
information that one shares on SNS.
In examining the world events discussed earlier, the
scope of the issue of privacy broadens beyond the indi-
vidual. For example, when a U.S. Representative was
touring Iraq in February of 2009, he released micro-blogs
123
190
of the trip via the social networking site Twitter. In doing
so, he detailed not only his location, but that of the entire
congressional delegation on a trip that was supposed to be
secret (Templeton 2009). SNS have changed the privacy
equation such that users of these sites must be responsible
for their information privacy as well as the information
privacy of all that accompany them and those that happen
to be in same general vicinity as well.
Take as another example the images that are being
posted on SNS from the streets of Tehran. Updates from
the protests in newspapers are littered with images and
videos from anonymous sources (Mackey 2009). While
those that take the images or record the videos have their
privacy protected by the veil of anonymity, who will pro-
tect the individuals who appear in the images? Did they
give consent to have the information of their attendance
broadcast to the world? Who ensures their rights to
privacy?
The U.S. military has become all too familiar with these
threats as they use SNS in the war zones of Iraq and
Afghanistan. While recognizing threats exist to themselves
and to others, they also realize the benefits that SNS pro-
vide. The general response to the threats to information
privacy by the service men and women has been to develop
a culture of ‘‘self-censorship’’ to ensure the privacy of not
only themselves, but those around them as well (Templeton
2009). This leads us to our first ethical principle of SNS:
1. When sharing information on SNS, it is not only
necessary to consider the privacy of one’s personal
information, but the privacy of the information of
others who may be tied to the information being
shared.
Accuracy
The response to the Iranian elections has also highlighted
issues regarding the accuracy of the data shared on SNS.
Many of the accounts and images being shared on SNS are
posted by anonymous sources. This makes verifying the
accuracy of the information of great importance to the
groups using it. For example, look at the differing
responses by journalists to the video depicting the shooting
of the young woman known as ‘Neda’ posted on the social
networking sites YouTube and Facebook. As the images
began to appear on various worldwide media outlets, the
Associated Press verified the videos existed after contact-
ing several protesters via email or phone but found no one
who actually witnessed the incident (Murphy, 2009). CNN
reports they broadcast fully verified content, but they also
broadcast content derived from SNS that has not been
verified with the caveat of putting the content in ‘full
123
J. L. Parrish Jr.
context.’ In a report for the Associated Press by Brian
Murphy (2009), CNN spokesperson Nigel Pritchard states:
‘‘It is important that the audience has a clear under-
standing of not only that (vetting) process, but also
the fact that in some cases we are not able to fully
verify content from those third-party sites,’’ Pritchard
said. ‘‘Especially in a media situation like we have in
Iran, it is vital that all elements of our reporting are
placed in full context.’’
When faced with such violent and moving images such
as those that are being shared on SNS, can context serve as
a proxy for accuracy?
It is not just the issue of anonymous posting of content
on SNS that contributes to the issues of accuracy. Many
people deliberately post inaccurate items or pretend to be
protesters while, in reality, they are actually spectators with
an agenda. For example, while the Associated Press
reported items from social networking that can be con-
nected to actual events, they are also aware that some
people are changing their profile locations to Tehran in an
attempt to gain more global exposure for their postings
(Murphy 2009). Additionally, just because there are post-
ings by people posing as protesters in Iran, the postings
may have nothing to do with the Iranian elections. A quick
look at the site twitspam.org will reveal there are postings
that spread misinformation and ill will regarding the
Iranian elections, suggest violence against police, make
anti-Semitic remarks, or spam individuals with pornogra-
phy and other unwanted sites (Twitspam 2009). The
problem is compounded by the fact that those spreading
disinformation have the ability to create multiple accounts
to carry out their agendas. While communities such as
Twitspam work diligently to inform the users of SNS of
those that would misuse the sites, it is ultimately the
responsibility of users to ensure that they are not legiti-
mizing the inaccuracy of the information by passing it
along to others. This is the foundation for the second
principle of ethical social networking site usage:
2. When sharing information on SNS, it is the responsi-
bility of the one desiring to share information to verify
the accuracy of the information before sharing it.
Property
Perhaps no area of PAPA has changed with the advent of
SNS and the user-generated content shared on them more
than property. In regards to property, Mason’s (1986)
concerns centered on taking information from individuals
(called ‘disemmindment’) and embedding it into intelligent
systems. While intellectual property rights are obviously
Ethical use of SNS
important, this paper is focused on the ownership issues
regarding personal information users share on SNS.
As of late, the issue of who owns the information posted
to SNS has been one of great debate. This debate reached
critical mass in February of 2009 when Facebook changed
its terms of service to allow the company to retain the
content existing in user accounts indefinitely even after
termination of the account. This resulted in a backlash from
the users of the social networking site who believed this
meant Facebook was claiming that any content that they
generated on the site would be owned exclusively by and
used in whatever manner Facebook wished (Selter 2009).
While Facebook contended there was no malicious intent
and the social networking site did not want to claim the
content of its users, consumer groups saw the issue dif-
ferently calling it a ‘‘digital rights grab’’ and warning users
to ‘‘never upload anything that you don’t feel comfortable
giving away forever (Stone and Selter 2009)’’. Three days
later, responding to pressure from many angry users and
the threat of litigation from a group of consumer advocacy
groups, Facebook reverted back to an earlier version of
their terms-of-service contract that did not contain the
ownership clause and stated that it would work with its
users to develop a more amenable terms-of-service contract
(Stone and Selter 2009).
Despite the fact that Facebook retreated on their changes
to their terms-of-service contract, users should still con-
sider carefully the content they wish to share on SNS if
they don’t want to lose control of the information forever.
This has nothing to do with the site. Rather, it has to do
with search engines and their ability to cache content. Say,
for example, a user posts an image on a social networking
site and then thinks better of it a few days later. If it was
cached by a search engine, it will still be accessible
regardless of whether or not it is removed from the site
(Mitrano 2006). Is it still the user’s picture? Do they have
the right to have it removed? Of course they do. However,
they now have to work through the search engine to do so
by following their procedure for removing the cached
content. Then, they have to follow the same procedure for
any other search engine that may have indexed and cached
the content on the social networking site (Mitrano 2006).
The prior example deals with the loss of control and
exclusive property rights to information posted on SNS (or
anywhere on the Internet) via technological means. Just
imagine the people that may come across a user’s profile
and find something interesting enough to share with others.
Perhaps the user doesn’t mind that they take a copy of
whatever information that they find interesting, but then
what happens to those people that take it from them, with
or without permission? It seems that the very ‘disem-
mindment’ that Mason feared is happening on a grand scale
being facilitated by the pervasive interconnectivity of the
191
Internet. Whether this happens with or without the consent
of the user, the point is that placing information on SNS
may not relieve the user of ‘‘actual’’ ownership of the
information, but there is a good chance that they will lose
‘‘effective’’ ownership of it. In order to truly ‘own’ infor-
mation an individual must not only have a legal right to it,
but to be able to account for its various locations as well as
have access to those locations. The principle for the ethical
use of SNS related to property is as follows:
3. A user of SNS should not post information about
themselves that they feel they may want to retract at
some future date. Furthermore, users of SNS should
not post information that is the product of the mind of
another individual unless they are given consent by
that individual. In both cases, once the information is
shared, it may be impossible to retract.
Access
Access in Mason’s framework is intended to combat
‘information illiteracy.’ His conception of access consists
of access to education so that citizens of the information
society can develop the intellectual skills to cope with
information, access to the technological tools with which to
store and process the information, and the access to the
information itself. Access was an issue in 1986 when
Mason originally penned the PAPA framework. Mason
even went as far as to say that the level of access as he
described it was in a state of retreat (Mason 1986). While
this may have been the case in 1986, it is not today. Issues
such as Net Neutrality, where providers can throttle down
the bandwidth of some online content providers while
allowing others full access to bandwidth in exchange for
payment do affect an individual’s access to information,
but not to the extent that they did in Mason’s time. The
Internet and its effects on globalization have been well
chronicled in the book The World is Flat, by Thomas
Friedman. In this book, Friedman discusses how the
Internet has allowed individuals to collaborate and compete
globally (Friedman 2005). This is partially because infor-
mation technology has become ubiquitous in the global
society and that gives us access to information and to each
other. In the case of SNS it is also partially due to the fact
that Web 2.0 technologies have made it easier for indi-
viduals to create and consume information without the
requirements of possessing detailed knowledge of the
technology they are using to do so.
While the level of access enjoyed by the members of
today’s information society is unprecedented, it comes with
a level of risk. Private businesses have found reasons to
restrict access to SNS citing reasons of lost worker pro-
ductivity, non-business usage of network resources, and
123
192 J. L. Parrish Jr.

security (Yun and Kelley 2008). While the first two reasons any type of threat goes out the window if the content
are primarily of concern to organizations and are outside comes from someone within a circle or from a known
the scope of this paper, the third is a concern to both source.’’
businesses and individuals. It has been previously noted
This means that when a user of SNS provides access to
that phishing attacks become much more successful when
their information they are also, in many cases, providing
the attackers use information gained from sources such as
access to the information of other users they are associated
SNS (Jagatic et al. 2007). However, SNS can also be used
with on the SNS. Even if the access to the other user’s
as the tools to carry out phishing attacks, as well as being
information is not direct, they have, at a minimum, given a
distribution vectors for viruses and other forms of malware
reason to trust the person or program that they have granted
(Yun and Kelley 2008). It is this concern about the security
access to. Because of this, the SNS user has some level of
of corporate systems and individuals that have spurred
responsibility with regards to harm that may be caused to
researchers (Carminati et al. 2009; Carminati et al. 2008)
others as a result of allowing persons or programs that are
and practitioners (Yun and Kelley 2008) to devise ways to
not legitimate access to their account.
control access to SNS, mostly at the organizational level.
One may wonder about the responsibility that the SNS
Given that access to shared information is a concern to both
has in this regard. Many SNS programs have provided a
organizations as well as individuals, what ethical obliga-
means for SNS users for not allowing a program or person
tions do individuals have relating to the access of their
access to their account or to restrict the information that is
shared information on SNS?
available if they do grant access. While these controls are
Mason (1986) stated that systems should be accessible
provided to SNS users, the user has to activate them. This
so that individuals would not be illiterate with respect to
is most likely done for practical reasons since SNS are
information. He also believed in accessibility of systems so
meant for sharing information so high levels of default
that people would not be deprived of information. It may
security go against the spirit of the SNS. It could also be
be that today’s issues of access as they relate to individuals
that the administrators of the SNS fear that a higher level of
are no longer issues relating to the intellectual and tech-
security would would be viewed as intrusive by their users
nological barriers that cause information illiteracy, but
much like the security in the Windows Vista UAC (Albro
rather are social and legal issues. Also, because the tech-
and Dahl 2007), thus causing them to go to SNS that are
nology in general and SNS in particular has made the
more user friendly. The point is that while the SNS can
sharing of information so prevalent, individuals that are
provide security features, the SNS user still has to make the
illiterate about the qualities of information may be more
final decision on whether or not to allow a person or pro-
vulnerable to information exploitation rather than infor-
gram access to their account. From this stream of thought
mation deprivation.
comes the final principle:
A recent study by security software vendor AVG found
that only 43% of users of the SNS Facebook use the site’s 4. It is the responsibility of the SNS user to determine the
access controls to limit the access that others have to their authenticity of a person or program before allowing the
information. Even more alarming is that the same study person or program access to the shared information.
reveals that 21% of SNS users accept ‘‘friend’’ requests
from people they don’t know, 26% share files, and 64%
click on unknown hyperlinks despite knowing the risks
Conclusion
involved. As a result, the study found that 47% of the users
surveyed had experienced a malware attack, 20% had their
The explosion of SNS has changed the way human beings
identity stolen, and more than 50% were phished (Ragan
connect, collaborate, and live their daily lives. There is no
2009). Additionally, sites such as Facebook and MySpace
doubt that as technology becomes more advanced these
allow users to grant profile access to applications and
changes will continue. With these changes, however, we
games that can be written by anyone.
are also faced with a multitude of new ethical dilemmas
Often, it is not only the individual sharing the infor-
caused by our interaction with the technology. These
mation that is at risk. People can use the access granted by
changes will require reconsideration of the existing social
one user to attack others. Steve Ragan (2009) writes:
contracts that govern ethical behavior in order to stay
‘‘The idea of exploiting trust in the website and in the effective in protecting the rights of SNS users. Although
community circle is how many criminals stay suc- the information society Mason (1986) envisioned when he
cessful. If a person or source is seen as trusted, then originally conceived of PAPA has changed dramatically
there is little risk associated with anything that source over the years, it is still concerned with the ethical use of
offers in the eyes of the user. The foreknowledge of information. To summarize, the principles are:

123
Ethical use of SNS
1. When sharing information on SNS, it is not only
necessary to consider the privacy of one’s personal
information, but the privacy of the information of
others who may be tied to the information being
shared.
2. When sharing information on SNS, it is the responsi-
bility of the one desiring to share information to verify
the accuracy of the information before sharing it.
3. A user of SNS should not post information about
themselves that they feel they may want to retract at
some future date. Furthermore, users of SNS should
not post information that is the product of the mind of
another individual unless they are given consent by
that individual. In both cases, once the information is
shared, it may be impossible to retract.
4. It is the responsibility of the SNS user to determine the
authenticity of a person or program before allowing the
person or program access to the shared information.
The principles presented here are by no means meant to
serve as a definitive set of rules for SNS users. Rather the
aim is to provide some basic principles, tied to the qualities
of the information, which can serve to assist users in the
formation of new ethical norms on which to base new
social contracts. We believe it is our responsibility as
researchers to use the gifts of information and technology
to, as Mason (1986, p. 12) wrote some 23 years ago,
‘‘create the kind of world in which we would like to live’’.
Acknowledgments Thanks to Prof. James Courtney and Assoc.
Prof. Janet Bailey for reviewing and providing input on earlier draft
versions of this paper.
References
Albro, E., & Dahl, E. (2007). The most annoying things about
Windows Vista. http://www.pcworld.com/article/129126/the_
most_annoying_things_about_windows_vista.html. Retrieved
07 January 2009.
Carminati, B., Ferrari, E., Heatherly, R., Kantarcioglu, M., &
Thuraisingham, B. (2009). A semantic web based framework
for social access control. Paper presented at the symposium on
access control models and technologies.
Carminati, B., Ferrari, E., & Perego, A. (2008). Enforcing access
control in web-based social networks. ACM Transactions on
Information & System Security, 4(3), 191–233.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of
business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. The Academy
of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.
193
Dunfee, T. (1991). Business ethics and extant social contracts.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 23–51.
Fairweather, N. B. (2000). No, PAPA: Why incomplete codes of
ethics are worse than none at all. In G. Collste (Ed.), Ethics and
information technology (pp. 259–277). Linkoping: Linkopings
Universitet Centre for Applied Ethics.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-
first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Jagatic, T., Johnson, N., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social
phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94–100.
Johnson, A., & Murphy, B. (2009). Iranian election followed by violent
protests [Electronic Version]. SF Gate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/15/MN8B1875I0.DTL. Retrieved
15 June.
Landler, M., & Mazetti, M. (2009). U.S. Scrambles for information on
Iran [Electronic Version]. NYTimes.com. http://www.nytimes.
com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23diplo.html?hp. Retrieved
22 June.
Mackey, R. (2009). Thursday: Updates on Iran’s disputed election
[Electronic Version]. The New York Times. http://thelede.blogs.
nytimes.com/2009/06/18/latest-updates-on-irans-disputed-election-
2/?hpw. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
Mason, R. O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS
Quarterly, 10(1), 5–12.
Mitrano, T. (2006, March 2009). Thoughts on facebook. http://www2.
cit.cornell.edu/policy/memos/facebook.html. Retrieved 23 June
2009.
Murphy, B. (2009). World’s media seeks ways around Iran clamp-
down [Electronic Version]. Washington Post. http://www.washi
ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR20090621
00729.html. Retrieved 21 June.
Ragan, S. (2009). AVG study examines social networking safety
measures [Electronic Version]. The Tech Herald. http://www.
thetechherald.com/article.php/200935/4316/AVG-study-examines-
social-networking-safety-measures. Retrieved 27 August 2009.
Selter, B. (2009). Facebook’s users ask who own information
[Electronic Version]. The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html.
Retrieved 23 June 2009.
Stone, B., & Selter, B. (2009). Facebook Withdraws Chages in Data
Use [Electronic Version]. The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html.
Retrieved 23 June 2009.
Templeton, H. (2009). Social media benefity trump security fears
[Electronic Version]. Medill Reports Retrieved 22 June 2009.
Twitspam. (2009). Twitspam. http://twitspam.org/. Retrieved 23 June
2009.
Yun, J., & Kelley, J. (2008). How to approach access control in the
social networking age [Electronic Version]. eWeek. http://
www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/How-to-Approach-
Access-Control-in-the-Social-Networking-Age/. Retrieved 23
June 2009.
123