Is Mass Surveillance Unethical?

Surveillance is no different from the casual practice of people watching, but instead of being a casual practice that might occur at one park, or at one restaurant, mass surveillance is sustained over time, and is done on a significant number of people. This practice was put in place to pay attention not just to any random person that roams the streets, but to pay attention to a specific group of people and for a specified reason. This is what raises much controversy about the issue of mass surveillance. It does not have to involve watching, sometimes it can also be done by listening, smelling, or detective hardware. When a cellphone conversation is bugged, this is mass surveillance. When a dog is used to sniff out drugs at the border, this is mass surveillance. The ethics behind this issue have been debated time and again, but whichever point wins, it still remains to be seen that surveillance is a neutral activity whose application can be geared towards good or bad (Cohen, p25). Yet most continue to argue over the morality of the issue. As we delve into this matter, there will be specific questions that logically need to be answered in order create a proper analysis that has the capability to be brought to a final conclusion and answer. Whose responsibility is it to spy on the masses? And under which circumstances is it right to listen is? Is mass surveillance right at all? These are the questions that thus paper will explore—analyzing the two sides to the sharp edged sword that is mass surveillance.

The History of Mass Surveillance Ethics

Jeremy Bentham
came up with the idea of The Panopticon- an idea that was considered among the
first to contribute to the ethical debate on mass surveillance (Bentham 1995).
The proposed the concept of The Panopticon – a circular prison whose cells were
adjacent to the outside walls and whose center had a tower that hosted the
prison manager. The work of this manager would be to watch the inmates as they
went about their daily business. It would be built in such a way that the
supervisor would see the inmates, but the watched could not see this supervisor
at any point in time. There would also be a means of communication that allowed
the supervisor on top of the tower to shout out their demands to the prisoners.
The principle of the system was that these prisoners would not know they were
under surveillance, but seeing as the supervisor would somehow have access to
all their secrets, they would, eventually, come to assume that they were being
watched and listened to at all times (Cropf, Cropf & Bagwell, p65). This would,
in turn, encourage them to behave in the required manner, and in case they had
visitors over, these visitors would also be discouraged from committing crimes
on the behalf of the inmates.

The concept of
the Panopticon does not end there. In his book, 1984, George Orwell
takes this concept to a whole new level (Orwell 2004). Orwell magnified this
concept to reach way beyond the inmates in Bentham’s idea. In 1984, the
Panopticon took the shape of a two-way television that gave the government
visual and audio access to the homes and work offices of its citizens. In the
case of prisoners, these citizens would always be reminded that they were being
watched. Orwell discusses both the reasons and the impact of doing something
like this.

Further
exploring this issue is Michel Foucault in the book Discipline and Punish (Foucault
1991). The book explores the obvious use and abuse of power that is behind the
idea of mass surveillance. He analyzes how prisons have grown from a means of
punishment, to a way of punishing and disciplining offenders for their wrongs.
With something like the Panopticon, Foucault argues that prisoners became like
social experiments- denied their very basic freedoms in an attempt to punish
and discipline them. These three references in history raised fundamental
questions on the ethics of surveillance, and although their text mostly
revolves around a prison setting, one cannot help but equate this concept to
society such that the general population in a country become the prisoners, and
the supervisor watching from the tower at the center of the Panopticon becomes
the government.

Modern Surveillance

Surveillance
has evolved from a primitive and a careless procedure to a carefully planned
out scheme that involves more than a few parties. The technological
advancements that the contemporary society so enjoys has become the very tool
to be used against them. This realization has made people question the role of
mass surveillance. This debate has spilled over to the field of academics where
fields of study like Surveillance Studies have come up, brining jurists,
sociologists, philosophers, and scientists together to examine the ethics, the
science, and the reasons behind mass surveillance (Cropf, Cropf & Bagwell,
p80).

Today, thanks
to technology, mass surveillance has become very complex, both as a social
subject and as a science. Now, people can be watched with discreteness thanks
to the mobility and small size of freshly invented mass surveillance devices.
Surveillance is like a wide, wild wave from the ocean that no one ever sees
coming. Take the instance of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) cameras. These
devices are there to gaze and stare as people mover about daily. On the other
side is an anonymous viewer that is slowly making conclusions about the way we
walk, the way we talk, and the way we live. Unlike the centralized Panopticon,
this type of mass surveillance is watching people on an unimaginable scale. The
network behind this system transfers magnitude of information back and forth
every passing minute (Fuchs, p46). The computerized society is practically
exposing itself to be watched and followed around. But surveillance is here for
two reasons- to stalk and probe into the private affairs of other people, or to
bring forth justice. In some cases, surveillance has even been known to be
accepted by the people being watched. This makes it a very ethnically neutral
subject, and hence very hard to be explored. The only things left to be
analyzed are the proportionality of surveillance, or the methods used to
surveil, or the justification of the cause. With such concepts in mind, other
smaller but equally significant issues like autonomy, trust and privacy come up
in relation to ethics.

Forms of Mass Surveillance

CCTVs and
databases are still used to monitor people today, but for the most part, mass
surveillance is done on the internet. Communications are what are monitored
these days, including the activity on our mobile devices and computers (Fuchs,
p64).

Phone spying
is done by geography. People in a specific area using a specific cell tower are
surveilled together. There are also some cases when the government can set up
fake mobile base stations so as to listen in on all the communication ongoing
in a specific area, for instance, during a riot that is likely to turn violent.

The
limitations of mass surveillance devices are virtually disappearing and the
government can now access more information than ever. Cell phone conversations
are saved by phone companies to be retrieved incase the government needs it.
All this information comes with immense power. Even in our homes there is
surveillance. The invention of smart devices enables companies to monitor our
electricity usage, and smart cities track vehicles for miles on end using
sensors and cameras (Babcock & Freivogel, p34). The legality
of these devices has been documented, so the only thing that is left for us to
debate on is their ethicality.

What is the Problem of Mass Surveillance?

Governments
have tried to sugarcoat the situation by calling mass surveillance ‘bulk
collection of communications’, but however it is phrased, it is still just mass
surveillance.  The problem is that mass surveillance interferes with
privacy. This point cannot be stressed enough because all surveillance devices
are bent on one goal- record it all. They are created specifically to mine
data, to exploit data, to draw conclusions from this data, and to try and
create patters from the information if provides (Babcock & Freivogel, p53).
Systems are made specifically to filter out suspicious words and to determine
relationships between suspicious persons.

Mass
surveillance, at the very beginning, assumes that each and every person is a
suspect. Slowly but surely, most of the population is eliminated from this
bracket. People are correlated on the basis of what many be nothing more than a
coincidence. Visiting the same website at the same time, or going to the same
restaurant every morning for coffee- conclusions are made from the little
connections that can be made. With the little details, patterns can be created
and the government can have a whole idea of what an individual’s life is like.
By listening to what they do, what they say, what they buy, what they eat, and
where they go, law enforcement agencies can create 100 percent accurate
profiled on people without these people ever knowing. With this kind of
information, there is always risk. In as much as there might be very strong
guidelines put in place to protect the information from abuse, there will
always be the few cases that slip through the cracks (Babcock & Freivogel,
p74). Mass surveillance therefore becomes a danger to the very people that it
is meant to protect.

Those who end
up as victims of such abuses suffer the worst mistakes of mass surveillance as
the attacker usually has all the personal information anyone would need to
cause harm. This is called the ‘chilling effect’ of surveillance. Sure, it is
meant to protect and it does protect, but generally, mass surveillance puts
people on alert. There is a difference between being watched and not being
watched, most people are just too used to it to even notice, but take mass
surveillance away and people will be freer to commit all sorts of acts- not
necessarily criminal acts, but acts nevertheless. Ultimately, we believe that
mass surveillance is there to protect us, but before we can be protected, how
much do we have to give up? Our innovation? Our free imagination and free
speech? Do we have to succumb to conformity just to be safe? Do we have to
stand something so unethical?

The Ethics of Privacy, Autonomy and Trust

Privacy is an
important this to society- it makes us feel safe, makes us feel in control
again, even if just for a while. Mass surveillance is a threat to this privacy,
or at least that is what most people use to make their arguments against it.
Especially at the individual level, privacy is an important thing. It is called
the right to privacy for a reason- it is not in the place of anyone, not even the
state, to take it away from people without their consent.

This right is
really a blanket policy that incorporates other minor rights within itself.
There is a right to privacy of property, and there is a right to personal
privacy. This right, apart from consisting of other sub-rights, does not stand
on its own. The right to privacy, in this respect, ceases to be a distinct
right at all. It is consisted of the right to autonomy, and other such rights.
For instance, when a person disposes their diary, it is violation of their
right to pick up this diary and read it. This is a violation of the right to
dispose of property privately. Torturing a person so as to get certain
information from them is a violation of their right not to be physically hurt
(Baxi, McCrudden & Paliwala, p56).

 Yet in
both these examples, there is still a violation of privacy among other rights.
The definition of the right to privacy is therefore not definite. Mass
surveillance cannot violate something that is not even definitely explained in
the first. We are therefore forced to come up with our own definition of this
right so that we can survive with the idea that we are being watched and
listened to at all moments of the day.

Privacy gives
us some control and some dignity. As we interact with other people, a large
amount of our security and our confidence comes from our privacy. Even though
we know nothing about the strangers we meet each day, we feel safe with the
notion that these people don’t know anything about us. If strangers knew our
weaknesses, then they might use them against us, so we feel safe knowing that
no one knows anything about our private lives. But mass surveillance violates
this safe zone. In mass surveillance, we are exposed to an all-seeing eye and
in a way, we are made to feel as though our secrets are out in the open.

But the public
has a level of dependency on the government, and in this way, it becomes okay
for the state to violate our privacy for the greater good. But the more
surveillance is used as an excuse to violate the privacy of the public, the
more that people lose their sense of autonomy(Baxi, McCrudden & Paliwala,
p76). Mass surveillance makes it so that we are not as confidence to speak in
public. It entices fear because we know that any and everything we do has
severe consequences. Using mass surveillance to make sure people don’t commit
any crimes is like forcing them to be good, and this just increases their need
for rebellion. So if the population becomes better because they are being
watched, it can be argued that these actions are only pretentious, and if the
mass surveillance equipment is taken away, then the public will back to its
true colors. In this way, the government is also dependent on mass
surveillance, and therefore it becomes unethical in such a way that it is used
as a crutch for the state to control the behavior of its citizens.

Why Surveillance?

So many people
jump straight to the impact that mass surveillance has on people- no one ever
really stops to ask why surveillance is installed all around them. It is a
basic assumption that surveillance is for security purposes, and while this
might be true, this question still needs to be explored is the ethical
foundation of mass surveillance is to be determined  (Cohen, p37). Yet
even as we jump to security reasons as the obvious answer this question, the
degree of security devices around us is a bit too much. There is also the
question of who is monitoring the footage that is recorded on all the cameras.
Take the example of political insurgents- is surveilling them really going to
improve the security of the state? The first thing we need to understand is
that their more than a few forms of surveillance. This practice extends far
beyond the CCTV cameras on our streets and in our offices- mass surveillance
has roots in each and every sector of the country.

But security
is not the only reason for mass surveillance. Retail stores and other companies
get information on the kinds of goods that customers buy from the information
on their loyalty cards- this is also a form of mass surveillance. The
customers, in exchange of some discount deals of similar promotions, gladly
participate in such forms of surveillance (Cohen, p57). Is this to be
considered unethical? How can it be unethical when the shopping experience of
these customers will be improved through their participation?

Looking at
transportation, especially public transit, people can now use the subway even
with no money on them. This is as a result of the invention of smart cards.
Using these cards, a person’s spending can be tracked and if they get into some
medical trouble when far away from home, the cards can be used to identify who
they are and provide their medical history. If police officers need to
establish the credibility of a suspect’s alibi, then they can simply track
their credit card movements and build a profile from there. These forms of
surveillance are not only beneficial, they can sometimes be essential to the
well-being of people. This is in no way unethical.

Mass
surveillance can be used for individual needs as well. A financially unstable
computer genius might decide to use their skills to hack into a credit card
company server and steal the numbers, hence taking other people’s money (Cohen,
p81). The hacker is unethical, but the credit card company is not unethical for
monitoring the spending of their customers. This makes mass surveillance both
ethical and unethical- it all depends on how the issue is approached. For
personal reasons, people might choose to exploit the mass surveillance
equipment already in place to invade the privacy of others. These systems have
a lot of personal information about many different people, and for this reason,
they are sensitive. If used for good, mass surveillance can benefit millions,
but is allowed into the wrong hands, then an unlucky few will suffer for it. Is
it ethical, therefore, to allow the few to suffer for the well-being of the
many? This brings up a whole other division of ethics that will take time and
research to explore, but mass surveillance is not a subject to be approached in
black and white. There are issues of distribution- who gets to suffer and who
gets to live if a specific instance of mass surveillance goes wrong? There is
the issue of consent. Supermarket customers have to agree to participate in
promotions that monitor their spending and the kind of goods they buy, but
criminals being investigated are denied to right to consent to privacy
intrusion, and the law has no obligation to them as long as they are suspects (Cohen,
p87). There is a concept of the greater good involved here, and for the few
that have to fall victim to the dark side of mass surveillance, one million
others get to live. Is this justified? No. but neither is it unjustified.

Who is in Charge?

As the party
being watched loses autonomy and power, the surveilling party gains more power
and control. The information that most people would rather keep to themselves
is known- it is out there in the public and the chances of it circulating even
further are higher. There is a power imbalance between the masses and the
people that are in charge of mass surveillance. In this context, surveillance
becomes wrong, almost like a primitive form of intimidation. It becomes
unethical and very dangerous for all the parties involved. Everyone, no matter
how insignificant, is entitled to certain basic rights. These are such as the
right to freely speak, the right to interact with other people, and the right
to freely protest against that which one finds distasteful. These rights are
law and are preached to all citizens every waking day, but with mass
surveillance, they become less equated to human rights and become more equated
to evidence (Pandey, p24). If there is a record of a person speaking freely for
or against certain beliefs they have, then thus record can be used against them
if they are ever suspected of committing a crime. People, therefore, decide to
stay low and only speak in the shadows, for the state holds all the power.

When it comes
to a point when a person’s rights are no longer their own, then mass
surveillance is considered to have crossed the ethical line. The simplest
democratic practices are hindered by cameras and such monitoring devices. What
is the point of giving away privileges only to use them against the very people
that are supposed to be protected by these privileges?

There is also
the question of distance. The surveilling team is literally on the other side
of the screen- adding to the power imbalance between the authorities and the
masses (Pandey, p32). This gives a sense of two very different parties where
one in pulling the strings and the other party has to adhere to all the rules
or there will be consequences. People are spied upon, denied basic rights, and
made to feel powerless. In this way, mass surveillance becomes unethical, even
though it is used to protect these very people.

Nothing to Hide

There is a
famous statement, “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then there is nothing to
fear.” This statement has long been used to justify the ethics of surveillance.
If the public has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear even if the
government pricks and probes at the most private details of their lives.
Looking at it carefully, however, it does make sense. Majority of the people have
no criminal records, nor do they have any intention of committing any crimes in
the future. In this sense, mass surveillance does not affect them in any way.
Surveillance is only meant to catch the bad few and make the lives of others
safer in the process. In this reasoning, the government has installed cameras,
wiretaps, and record checks almost everywhere. Citizens are convinced that all
this effort is for their own good, and once the terrorists have been
eliminated, it will have been worth it. But the bad guys never quit, and every
waking morning, the government finds new ways to get more information- both in
quantity and in depth. It is true that mass surveillance makes it safer for the
majority, but this does not make it ethical (Bishop, Miloslavskaya &
Theocharidou,  p51).

If the
government mandated every citizen to walk around with a tracking device in an
effort to advance mass surveillance, then it would make sense that anyone who
refused to do so has something to hide and should be investigated further. But
it can also be argued that such measures are simply wrong and in violation of
most forms of privacy. So if most people refuse to willingly submit to the will
of government and give themselves up to be examined, then it does not
necessarily mean that these people are criminals, it just means that they value
their privacy more than their security- or something like that.

Yet, with the
modern advancements in technology, the government can already track people even
when they are not carrying any tracking devices on them. People can be tracked
using their credit card actions, or using cameras that are lodged on every
street corner(Bishop, Miloslavskaya & Theocharidou,  p74). These
movements, however, can only be tracked to a certain extent. In this way, a
person is able to be kept safe and they are also able to maintain their
privacy. Yet this is not any better that if the government forcefully
implemented a law that mandated everyone to carry around a tracking device.
Both actions are invasive, and thus both actions are wrong, and just because
one is more invasive than the other does not make the latter action any less
unethical.

There is also
the issue of storage. After the information has been collected from the public,
it is stored in archives that are vulnerable to hackers. There are people
capable of accessing this information and using it to harm and not to protect.
This puts the whole argument against the use of mass surveillance to watch the
public. For instance, back in 2007, a worker from the Department of Commerce,
Benjamin Robinson, accessed a government database and used the information
within it to track the movements of his former girlfriend. He accessed this
system at least 163 times before he was discovered, an if it had continued for
any longer, then the girl that was being tracked could have ended up in real
danger (Bishop, Miloslavskaya & Theocharidou,  p85). This man was
unethical in his actions, but so was the government for collecting personal
information and storing it in such a way that it could be accessed more than
100 times before any red flags were raised.

When to use Mass Surveillance

So when
exactly is mass surveillance ethical? Would it be ethical when we are invaded
and it is the only way that the invaders can be flushed out? Would it be
ethical if the data collected in the devices is not used against the people
that are supposed to be protected by the surveillance systems? There are lines
that should not be crossed, the only problem is that these lines are not clear.
According to M.I.T. Professor Gary Marx, there are a number of questions that
need to be answered before mass surveillance can be implemented anywhere.

Means

The first
issue that needs to be explored is the means of mass surveillance being used.
Does it cause any sort of harm to the public, be it physical or psychological?
Does the surveillance method have boundaries? The technique used should not be
allowed to cross a certain line without consent of the party being surveilled.
The techniques being used also needs to be trustworthy. The personal
information of the people being surveilled should be kept safe and it should
not be used against them. Is the method invasive to personal relationships?
Lastly, the means used to enforce mass surveillance needs to produce results as
they were- the results should be valid and not doctored in any way (Berleur
& Whitehouse. P42).

Context

The second
issue that has to be explored to justify mass surveillance is that of data
collection context. Those being surveilled need to be aware that personal
information is being collected on them, and they need to know who is collecting
this information and why they are collecting it. These individuals need to
agree to be surveilled- consent is a key issue. And then comes the golden rule-
those that are responsible to setting up and implementing surveillance also
need to be its subjects. In short, everyone, even government officials, need to
agree to the same conditions that everyone else agrees to. Mass surveillance
should indeed look out for the masses- no exceptions. For it to be ethically
justifiable at all, then a certain principle of minimization needs to be
enforced.

Mass
surveillance also has to be decided by the public. To come to the decision of
setting up surveillance, a discussion has to be held publicly and people have
to decide for or against it. If they decide to go through with it, then there
needs to be a human review of the machines and the equipment that are to be
used. The people that decide to be surveilled are also entitled to inspect the
results of this surveillance and question how the results were created and how
they are going to be used. They also have a right to challenge the records in
case any obvious errors are made with the surveillance results (Berleur &
Whitehouse. P62).

Before mass
surveillance can be allowed to function in society, then there needs to be a
means of redress. In case any individual is treated unjustly because of
surveillance, then there should be appropriate punishments in place for the
perpetrator of the crime so as to phase out unethical surveillance behavior.
The data collected needs to be protected adequately so as to avoid any
unethical use of this information in the first place. Mass surveillance methods
need to have very minimal negative effects, or preferable, no negative effects
at all. Lastly, mass surveillance needs to be equal. The same methods used on
the middle class need to be used on the upper class, and is there is a way of
resisting mass surveillance, then the government needs to make sure that these
methods are available to the privileged as well as to the less privileged
(Berleur & Whitehouse. P69). If even one person can escape mass
surveillance, then all the other members of the public have no business being
watched by the government.

Uses

The final
issue that has to be analyzed is that of the uses of the data that is collected
from mass surveillance devices. Surveillance needs to have a certain goal-
whether it is to improve the shopping experience of customers, or to reduce
crime rate. The data collected needs to be useful in fulfilling this goal,
otherwise, there is no point. In as much as the goal needs to be fulfilled,
there also needs to be a perfect balance between fulfilling this goal and
spending just the right amount of money- not too much for it to be wasteful,
and not too little for the surveillance to bear worthless results. Before
surveillance is implemented, the responsible party needs to make sure there is
no other means that will cost less money and fulfill the same duties (Berleur
& Whitehouse. P87). If it is too costly, then are there any consequences of
not installing surveillance equipment, and if so, to what extent will these
consequences affect society? How can the cost and the risk be minimized? The
information collected needs to be used only for its intended purposes only and
nothing more.

Therefore,
mass surveillance can be ethical, but it also has a large capacity to be
unethical. Following this guideline, mass surveillance should be installed with
no problems and with no major violations of any kind. However this issue is
approached, there will always be a basic violation of privacy that is
associated with surveillance, but the damage is controllable as long as the
public consents to it. there needs to be appropriate measures and guidelines
put in place before using any form of mass surveillance on a population, and
these guidelines need to be adhered to by all the involved parties- be it the
party surveilling, or the party being surveilled.

How do we make Surveillance Ethical?

There is a lot
of fuss about mass surveillance. We should never stop discussing the underlying
issues on mass surveillance, but we should also give the government a chance to
prove that mass surveillance is truly for the good of the public and not just
some scheme to keep citizens in check. Mass surveillance attempts to do the
impossible- keep people safe while also maintaining an open and free society
with people who are not afraid to express their views. Amidst all these issues,
the question of how to make mass surveillance more ethical is often overlooked,
but there is truly a way in which we can make sure that mass surveillance is
justified and only in the best interest of the masses.

For mass
surveillance to be ethical, there needs to be a reason for it. Secretively
spying on people without them knowing why or how is why surveillance is
considered unethical, but approaching these people from a logical standpoint
and explaining to them why mass surveillance is necessary is in every way
ethical (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell, p38).

For
surveillance to be ethical, there also needs to be transparency. This means
that there should be integrity of motive- no secret agendas. Right from the way
the data is collected to the way it is handled and used, there needs to
complete honesty between the parties involved.

The methods
used need to be analyzed for proportionality, there must be laws put in place
to protect the interests of those being surveilled, and lastly, there needs to
be a clear prospect for success if mass surveillance is to be carried on for a
long period of time (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell, p78).

Conclusion

So, is mass
surveillance unethical? Yes it is, and no, it is not. This is one of those
issues that has to be examined in context. If a criminal hacks into the
surveillance system of a particular government and uses it to commit a major
crime, then this criminal is wrong, but this still does not make mass
surveillance unethical. The justification and ethicality of mass surveillance
are often treated as one subject, and in as much as they may overlap, they are
quite different. For instance, it is justified for a government to put up
cameras to protect the many while they focus on the few bad apples that are
likely to commit crimes, but it is unethical that this same government is
intruding the privacy of so many people just to catch a few criminals. In the
same way, it is unethical to listen in on a cell phone conversation of a
suspect in a criminal investigation, but if this person ends up being convicted
because of the conversation, then it becomes justified, and to some extent,
also ethical.

If we go back
to the basics, parents have to monitor their children in order for these
infants to survive. In this context, the infants are viewed as powerless,
helpless, and in need of constant care and attention. It is therefore the
parent’s responsibility, both ethically and morally, to be there for their
child. After these children grow, they become independent and are no longer in
need of constant attention. These children start to pull away from their
parents and seek out their own privacy. The same knowledge can be applied to
the issue of mass surveillance. The public can be seen as children who have
grown over time and earned the right to their own privacy, and yet the
government persists on monitoring them constantly (Cohen, p85). In the public
consents to this surveillance, then it becomes ethically justifiable for mass
surveillance to continue, but without the public’s consent to surveillance,
then it becomes wrong and an intrusion of privacy.

Work cited

Cropf, Robert
A, Robert A Cropf, and Timothy C Bagwell. Ethical Issues And Citizen Rights In
The Era Of Digital Government Surveillance. 1st ed. Print.

Cohen,
E. Mass Surveillance And State Control. 1st ed. [Place of
publication not identified]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Print.

Gamino Garcia,
Arkaitz et al. Mass Surveillance. 1st ed. [Brussels]: [European
Commission], 2015. Print.

Pandey,
Archit. An Introduction To Mass Surveillance And International Law.
1st ed. Print.

Baxi, Upendra,
Christopher McCrudden, and Abdul Paliwala. Law’s Ethical, Global And
Theoretical Contexts. Essays In Honour Of William Twining. 1st ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016. Print.

Babcock,
William A, and William H Freivogel. The SAGE Guide To Key Issues In Mass Media
Ethics And Law. 1st ed. Print.

Berleur, J,
and Diane Whitehouse. An Ethical Global Information Society. 1st ed. London:
New York, 1997. Print.

Law’s Ethical,
Global, And Theoretical Contexts. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Print.

Bishop, Matt,
Natalia Miloslavskaya, and Marianthi Theocharidou. Information Security
Education Across The Curriculum. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2015. Print.

Duquenoy,
Penny, Simon Jones, and Barry Blundell. Ethical, Legal And Professional Issues
In Computing. 1st ed. Australia: Thomson, 2008. Print.

Fuchs,
Christian. Internet And Surveillance: The Challenges Of Web 2.0 And
Social Media. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.