Computer Technology: Privacy and

Social Policy
 Privacy and Boundary-Crossing

Informational Physical Decisional Proprietary

Privacy Privacy Privacy Privacy
Privacy Versus Social Utility

‘‘our interest in privacy ...is related to our

concern over our accessibility to others: the
extent to which others have physical access to
us, and the extent to which we are the subject
of others’ attention.’’
Finding a Creative Middle Way

Privacy Act passed by the

U.S Congress in 1974
 The existence of data systems containing personal
1 information should be public knowledge.

Personal information should be collected for narrow,

specific purposes and used only in ways that are similar
2 to and consistent with the primary purposes for its
collection.

Personal information should be collected only with the

3 informed consent of the persons about whom the
information is collected or their legal representatives.
 Personal information should not be shared with third
4 parties without notice or consent of those about whom
the information is collected.

To ensure accuracy, the time information can be stored

5 should be limited, and individuals should be permitted
to review the information and correct errors.

Those who collect personal date should ensure the

6 security and integrity of personal data systems.
 COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY:
OWNERSHIP OF COMPUTER
SOFTWARE AND PUBLIC POLICY
On June 28, 1990, an important decision was rendered with
regard to a lawsuit between Lotus Development
Corporation, the creator of the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, and
Paperback International, the creator of the VP-Planner
spreadsheet. Lotus had sued Paperback International for
infringement of its copyright on Lotus 1-2-3. Paperback had
copied the entire menu structure of the Lotus 1-2-3
program. The manual of the VP-Planner even contained the
following statement:
 VP-Planner is designed to work like Lotus, 1-2-3, keystroke for
keystroke .... VP-Planner’s worksheet is a feature-for-feature
workalike for the 1-2-3. It does micros. It has the same
command tree. It allows the same kind of calculations, the same
kind of numerical information. Everything 1-2-3 does, VP-
Planner does.

Paperback, in turn, alleged that only the part of a computer program written
in some computer language, such as C, is copyrightable. It argued that the
more graphic parts of a program, such as the overall organization of the
program, the structure of the program’s command system, the menu, and
the general presentation of information on the screen, are not
copyrightable. Lotus countered by arguing that copyright protection extends
to all elements of a computer program that embody original expression.
The judge ruled that even though the idea of an
electronic spreadsheet is not copyrightable, the
Lotus spreadsheet was original and nonobvious
enough to be copyrightable, and that VP-planner
had infringed on the copyright. Accordingly,
District Judge Keaton ruled that VP-Planner had
infringed on the Lotus copyright.
 Should Software Be Protected?

there was more innovation and

it promotes the progress of experimentation in the early days
technology. of software development when
software was free.

based on the ethics of respect Granting legal protection tends to

increase the price and may reduce
for persons/ labor theory of the quality of software because
ownership. competition is limited or reduced.
Should Software Be Protected?

First, technological innovation has considerable value to

society, and innovation is probably stimulated when
innovators know that they can claim ownership of their
work and require compensation for its use.

Second, if we believe that owners generally have the

right to exclude others from the use of their own
creations, except on terms that they specify, then it
would seem that this right should extend to software
How Should Software Be
Protected?

Copyrighted Patented
How Should Software Be
Protected?
Engineering Responsibility in
Democratic deliberation on
technology policy
Engineering Responsibilities

Alert Inform Advise