Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.018291771 = product of:
  0.0640212 = sum of:
    0.05024958 = weight(_text_:networks in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05024958 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.013771616 = product of:
      0.027543232 = sum of:
        0.027543232 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027543232 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article introduces a normative principle for the behavior of contemporary computing and communication systems and considers some of its consequences. The principle, named the principle of distribution, says that in a distributed multi-agent system, control resides as much as possible with the individuals constituting the system rather than in centralized agents; and when that is unfeasible or becomes inappropriate due to environmental changes, control evolves upwards from the individuals to an appropriate intermediate level rather than being imposed from above. The setting for the work is the dynamically changing global space resulting from ubiquitous communication. Accordingly, the article begins by determining the characteristics of the distributed multi-agent space it spans. It then fleshes out the principle of distribution, with examples from daily life as well as from Computer Science. The case is made for the principle of distribution to work at various levels of abstraction of system behavior: to inform the high-level discussion that ought to precede the more low-level concerns of technology, protocols, and standardization, but also to facilitate those lower levels. Of the more substantial applications given here of the principle of distribution, a technical example concerns the design of secure ad hoc networks of mobile devices, achievable without any form of centralized authentication or identification but in a solely distributed manner. Here, the context is how the principle can be used to provide new and provably secure protocols for genuinely ubiquitous communication. A second, more managerial example concerns the distributed production and management of open-source software, and a third investigates some pertinent questions involving the dynamic restructuring of control in distributed systems, important in times of disaster or malevolence.

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.017846838 = product of:
  0.124927856 = sum of:
    0.124927856 = weight(_text_:standards in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.124927856 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.016639076 = product of:
  0.11647353 = sum of:
    0.11647353 = weight(_text_:government in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11647353 = score(doc=849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.50319487 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the developement of the information superhighway in the USA in relation to personal provacy. Argues that the ethical issues involving marketing practices will have to be balanced with rights to privacy and that government regulations and/or legislation have not yet addressed these concerns. Gives a number of examples where privacy issues are exacerbated by the superhighway, both through the collation of accurate information on individuals for marketing purposes and the spread of misinformation

0.016639076 = product of:
  0.11647353 = sum of:
    0.11647353 = weight(_text_:government in 2452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11647353 = score(doc=2452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.50319487 = fieldWeight in 2452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2452)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Writer Edward Cline looks at the debate on freedom of expression versus censorship in the USA with reference to the provision of information. He challenges the idea that there is a moral obligation to provide a forum for ideas with which one disagrees, noting the problems of public libraries attempting to balance the contents of their stock. Challenges American anti-intellectualism and maintains that, because of the invlovement of the government in so many areas of life, America can no longer be considered a free country

0.016639076 = product of:
  0.11647353 = sum of:
    0.11647353 = weight(_text_:government in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11647353 = score(doc=3774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.50319487 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Archivists deal with legal and ethical issues every day in the course of administering collections of personal papers. This entry will discuss legal and ethical aspects of archival services in three areas: acquisitions, access, and terms of use, in the context of research libraries and manuscript repositories. It will not deal with government, corporate, or institutional archives.

0.015297289 = product of:
  0.10708102 = sum of:
    0.10708102 = weight(_text_:standards in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10708102 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.014357024 = product of:
  0.10049916 = sum of:
    0.10049916 = weight(_text_:networks in 7243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10049916 = score(doc=7243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.52258724 = fieldWeight in 7243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7243)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes the development of a draft statement on computer ethics developed by the library staff of Southern Methodist University to guide and direct library personnel in appropriate and acceptable use of personal computers connected to the campus networks and mainframe

0.013247842 = product of:
  0.09273489 = sum of:
    0.09273489 = weight(_text_:standards in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09273489 = score(doc=424,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Ethical standards are required at both the individual and system levels of the information organization enterprise, but are those standards the same? For example, are the ethical responsibilities of DDC's editorial board fundamentally the same as for an individual cataloger? And, what are the consequences of decisions made using different ethical frameworks to the users of knowledge organization systems? A selection of ethical theories suitable for evaluating moral dilemmas at all levels in information organization is presented, including utilitarianism, deontology, and pragmatism, as well as the more contemporary approaches of justice, feminist, and Derridean ethics. Finally, a selection of criteria is outlined, taken from the existing ethical frameworks, to use as a starting point for development of an ethical framework specifically for information organization.

0.012782155 = product of:
  0.08947508 = sum of:
    0.08947508 = product of:
      0.17895016 = sum of:
        0.17895016 = weight(_text_:policy in 2457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17895016 = score(doc=2457,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.82085973 = fieldWeight in 2457, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A value-based reference policy satisfies both the practical convcerns of the reference librarian and the principles stated in the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA Code of Ethics. One such value is justice, as described by John Rawls in 'A Theory of Justice'. A reference policy based on Rawls' system provides equitable service to all members of an academic community while permitting the librarian to uphold the ideal of freedom of access to information

0.010399423 = product of:
  0.07279596 = sum of:
    0.07279596 = weight(_text_:government in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279596 = score(doc=1869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.3144968 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The first part of this article deals with some initiatives concerning the role of information ethics for Africa, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, United Nations Information Communications Technology (ICT), and the African Information Society Initiative particularly since the World Summit on the Information Society. Information Ethics from Africa is a young academic field, and not much has been published so far on the impact of ICT on African societies and cultures from a philosophical perspective. The second part of the article analyzes some recent research on this matter particularly with regard to the concept of ubuntu. Finally, the article addresses some issues of the African Conference on Information Ethics held February 3-5, 2007, in Pretoria, South Africa.[The following essay is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the Africa Information Ethics Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, February 5-7, 2007. Under the patronage of UNESCO, sponsored by the South African government, and organized with assistance from the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the supporters and members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), the theme of the conference was Ethical Challenges in the Information Age: The Joy of Sharing Knowledge. The full version of the address as well as selected articles from the conference were published in Vol. 7 of ICIE's online journal, International Review of Information Ethics (for more information, visit http://icie.zkm.de)]

0.007827438 = product of:
  0.05479207 = sum of:
    0.05479207 = product of:
      0.10958414 = sum of:
        0.10958414 = weight(_text_:policy in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10958414 = score(doc=899,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The scale and complexity of the data and algorithms used in artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems present significant challenges for anticipating their ethical, legal, and policy implications. Given these challenges, who does the work of AI ethics, and how do they do it? This study reports findings from interviews with 26 stakeholders in AI research, law, and policy. The primary themes are that the work of AI ethics is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and that it involves situated meaning-making through data and algorithms. Given the stakes involved, it is not enough to simply satisfy that AI will not behave unethically; rather, the work of AI ethics needs to be incentivized.

0.006239654 = product of:
  0.043677576 = sum of:
    0.043677576 = weight(_text_:government in 6853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043677576 = score(doc=6853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.18869808 = fieldWeight in 6853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6853)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Kein Instinkt hemmte sie, Reviergrenzen zu überschreiten. Wer listiger war und die wirksameren Waffen entwickelte - alles Intelligenzleistungen -, hatte einen Überlebensvorteil. Diese Fähigkeiten wurden ins Genom übernommen und vererbbar, gleichzeitig förderten sie die Entwicklung des Großhirns, also die Kultur, Wissenschaft und Kunst. Die Konsequenzen dieser Theorie für das überkommene Verständnis des Menschen von sich selbst wären ungeheuerlich - man denke etwa an Thomas Hobbes' Formulierung Homo homini lupus, der Mensch verhält sich zum Menschen wie ein Wolf. Sie erklären zunächst, weshalb es bis jetzt nicht gelungen ist, den Menschen als Art zu befrieden und archaische Reaktionsmuster außer Kraft zu setzen, sei es das Vergeltungsprinzip - Gewalt gegen Gewalt - sei es die Rechtfertigung von Gewalt als sittlich notwendiger (patriotischer) Tat, sei es der Gehorsam gegenüber dem Befehl. Auch Legitimierungsrituale entspringen nicht zuletzt der "Antiquiertheit" der Denkvoraussetzungen. Keine Krone der Schöpfung. Die Untersuchung des Politikwissenschaftlers Rudolph J. Rummel (Death by Government) ist ein entsetzlicher Beleg dafür. Laut Rummel wurden im 20. Jahrhundert 110 Millionen Soldaten und 192 Millionen Zivilisten durch Staatsterror ein-schließlich Bombardierungen umgebracht, weitaus mehr als in der Zeit zwischen 600 v Chr. und 1899. Biologie und Verhaltensforschung haben längst Abschied genommen von der These, der Mensch sei die Krone der Schöpfung. Seine Gewaltbereitschaft und die Rechtfertigung von Gewalt müssen jedoch aufgedeckt werden, auch wenn es schockiert. Gewaltbereitschaft ist, obwohl im Genom angelegt, dennoch nicht unvermeidlich. Als einziger Ausweg bietet sich die Erziehung zum Frieden und zur charakterlich autonomen Persönlichkeit an. Die Methoden, wie diese hohen Ziele erreicht werden könnten, sind leider strittig.

0.005099097 = product of:
  0.035693675 = sum of:
    0.035693675 = weight(_text_:standards in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035693675 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In A Brief History of Information Ethics, Thomas Froehlich (2004) quickly surveyed under several broad categories some of the many issues that constitute information ethics: under the category of librarianship - censorship, privacy, access, balance in collections, copyright, fair use, and codes of ethics; under information science, which Froehlich sees as closely related to librarianship - confidentiality, bias, and quality of information; under computer ethics - intellectual property, privacy, fair representation, nonmaleficence, computer crime, software reliability, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce; under cyberethics (issues related to the Internet, or cyberspace) - expert systems, artificial intelligence (again), and robotics; under media ethics - news, impartiality, journalistic ethics, deceit, lies, sexuality, censorship (again), and violence in the press; and under intercultural information ethics - digital divide, and the ethical role of the Internet for social, political, cultural, and economic development. Many of the debates in information ethics, on these and other issues, have to do with specific kinds of relationships between subjects. The most important subject and a familiar figure in information ethics is the ethical subject engaged in moral deliberation, whether appearing as the bearer of moral rights and obligations to other subjects, or as an agent whose actions are judged, whether by others or by oneself, according to the standards of various moral codes and ethical principles. Many debates in information ethics revolve around conflicts between those acting according to principles of unfettered access to information and those finding some information offensive or harmful. Subjectivity is at the heart of information ethics. But how is subjectivity understood? Can it be understood in ways that broaden ethical reflection to include problems that remain invisible when subjectivity is taken for granted and when how it is created remains unquestioned? This article proposes some answers by investigating the meaning and role of subjectivity in information ethics.[In an article on cyberethics (2000), I asserted that there was no information ethics in any special sense beyond the application of general ethical principles to information services. Here, I take a more expansive view.]

0.004612363 = product of:
  0.03228654 = sum of:
    0.03228654 = product of:
      0.06457308 = sum of:
        0.06457308 = weight(_text_:policy in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06457308 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Studies an ethical aspects of our profession rarely focus an matters related with the organization and representation of knowledge, but are directed instead toward such subjects as intellectual property, right to privacy, intellectual freedom, or proper professional conduct. Nonetheless, the technological possibilities nowadays have meant a radical change. In the past, a certain policy for indexing or a classification system produced effects only in the relatively limited setting of a library or information center; but now the indexing or classification of certain electronic information resources has effects that go far beyond the physical boundaries of such institutions, or even those of a country. The objective of the present study is, an the one hand, to identify the principal ethical values related with the organization and representation of knowledge, and an the other hand, to see to what degree they are addressed by the ethical codes of professional associations.

0.0031477981 = product of:
  0.022034585 = sum of:
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:57:43

0.0031477981 = product of:
  0.022034585 = sum of:
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110

0.0031477981 = product of:
  0.022034585 = sum of:
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

13.10.2006 10:22:03

0.0031477981 = product of:
  0.022034585 = sum of:
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:50:50

0.0031477981 = product of:
  0.022034585 = sum of:
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

25.12.2019 14:19:22

0.0027543234 = product of:
  0.019280262 = sum of:
    0.019280262 = product of:
      0.038560525 = sum of:
        0.038560525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038560525 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31