Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1575–1603 | Cite as

The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers

Review Paper

Abstract

Online service providers (OSPs)—such as AOL, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter—significantly shape the informational environment (infosphere) and influence users’ experiences and interactions within it. There is a general agreement on the centrality of OSPs in information societies, but little consensus about what principles should shape their moral responsibilities and practices. In this article, we analyse the main contributions to the debate on the moral responsibilities of OSPs. By endorsing the method of the levels of abstract (LoAs), we first analyse the moral responsibilities of OSPs in the web (LoAIN). These concern the management of online information, which includes information filtering, Internet censorship, the circulation of harmful content, and the implementation and fostering of human rights (including privacy). We then consider the moral responsibilities ascribed to OSPs on the web (LoAON) and focus on the existing legal regulation of access to users’ data. The overall analysis provides an overview of the current state of the debate and highlights two main results. First, topics related to OSPs’ public role—especially their gatekeeping function, their corporate social responsibilities, and their role in implementing and fostering human rights—have acquired increasing relevance in the specialised literature. Second, there is a lack of an ethical framework that can (a) define OSPs’ responsibilities, and (b) provide the fundamental sharable principles necessary to guide OSPs’ conduct within the multicultural and international context in which they operate. This article contributes to the ethical framework necessary to deal with (a) and (b) by endorsing a LoA enabling the definition of the responsibilities of OSPs with respect to the well-being of the infosphere and of the entities inhabiting it (LoAFor).

Keywords

Freedom of speech Human rights Levels of abstraction Moral responsibilities Online service providers Privacy 

References

  1. Aceto, G., Botta, A., Pescapè, A., Feamster, N., Awan, M. F., Ahmad, T., et al. (2015). Monitoring internet censorship with UBICA. In M. Steiner, P. Barlet-Ros & O. Bonaventure (Eds.), Traffic monitoring and analysis, 143–57. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9053. Springer International Publishing. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17172-2_10
  2. Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce, 21–29. EC’04. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/988772.988777
  3. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security Privacy, 3(1), 26–33. doi:10.1109/MSP.2005.22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., & Ysa, T. (2007). Public policies on corporate social responsibility: The role of governments in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 391–407. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9514-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, M. (2008). The gaze of the perfect search engine: Google as an institution of dataveillance. In A. Spink & M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web search: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 77–99). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, G. (2012). Just business. London: Headline.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, D. G. (2010). Transnational corporations and the duty to respect basic human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 371–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). doi:10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394
  10. Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493–1512. doi:10.1002/asi.20857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of internet studies (pp. 384–405). Wiley. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444314861.ch18/summary
  12. Besmer, A., Lipford, H. R., Shehab, M. & Cheek, G. (2009). Social applications: Exploring a more secure framework. In Proceedings of the symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS).Google Scholar
  13. Black, J. (2001). Decentring regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self regulation in a ‘Post-Regulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems, 54(1), 103–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2008). Corporate responsibility: A critical introduction. OUP Oxford: New York.Google Scholar
  15. Blumenthal, M. S., & Clark, D. D. (2001). Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end to end arguments vs. the brave new world. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 1(1), 70–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boca, P. (2014). Formal methods: State of the art and new directions. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brenkert, G. G. (2009). Google, human rights, and moral compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 453–478. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9783-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burk, D. L. (2011). Toward an epistemology of ISP secondary liability. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1920050. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1920050
  20. Calhoun, C. J. (Ed.). (2002). Dictionary of the social sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cate, F., Cullen, P. & Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2014). Data protection principles for the 21st century, revising the 1980 OECD guidelines. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=41191
  22. Caudill, E., & Murphy, P. (2000). Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 7–19. doi:10.1509/jppm.19.1.7.16951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cavoukian, A. (2014). The unintended consequences of privacy paternalism. Canadian Electronic Library. Canadian Public Policy Collection.Google Scholar
  24. Cerf, V. G. (2011). First, do no harm. Philosophy & Technology, 24(4), 463–465. doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0056-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen, S. (2009). Corporate responsibilities in internet-enabled social networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 523–536. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0604-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cragg, W. (2010). Business and human rights: A principle and value-based analysis. In G. G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), The oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Crane, A., Matten, D., McWilliams, A., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. S. (Eds.). (2008). The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199211593
  28. Crawford, S. P. (2005). Shortness of vision: Regulatory ambition in the digital age. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/12933354
  29. Dann, G. E., & Haddow, N. (2007). Just doing business or doing just business: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the business of censoring China’s Internet. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 219–234. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9373-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Diaz, A. (2008). Through the Google goggles: Sociopolitical bias in search engine design. In A. Spink & M. Zimmer, Web search (pp. 11–34). Information Science and Knowledge Management 14. Berlin: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7_2
  32. Diller, A. (1994). Z: An introduction to formal methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Donaldson, T. (1992). The ethics of international business., The Ruffin Series in Business Ethnics New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  34. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  35. Edwards, L. (2011). Role and responsibility of the internet intermediaries in the field of copyright and related rights. Report. Geneva: WIPO. http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/35492/
  36. Elkin-Koren, N. (2001). Let the crawlers crawl: On virtual gatekeepers and the right to exclude indexing. University of Dayton Law Review, 26, 179–188.Google Scholar
  37. Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G. (2009). Who controls the internet? Beyond the obstinacy or obsolescence of the state. International Studies Review, 11(1), 205–230. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01841.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Etzioni, A. (1999). The limits of privacy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Floridi, L. (2008). The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and Machines, 18(3), 303–329. doi:10.1007/s11023-008-9113-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Floridi, L. (2015a). Free online services: Enabling, disenfranchising, disempowering. Philosophy & Technology, 28(2), 163–166. doi:10.1007/s13347-015-0200-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Floridi, L. (2015b). Should you have the right to be forgotten on google? Nationally, yes. Globally, no. New Perspectives Quarterly, 32(2), 24–29. doi:10.1111/npqu.11510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (Eds.). (2014). The ethics of information warfare. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Freeman, J. (1999). Private parties, public functions and the new administrative law. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 165988. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=165988
  45. Friedmann, D. (2014). Sinking the safe harbour with the legal certainty of strict liability in sight. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(2), 148–155. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpt227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gerry, F., & Berova, N. (2014). The rule of law online: Treating data like the sale of goods: Lessons for the internet from OECD and CISG and sacking google as the regulator. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(5), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Goldman, E. (2006). Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 893892. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=893892
  48. Granka, L. A. (2010). The politics of search: A decade retrospective. The Information Society, 26(5), 364–374. doi:10.1080/01972243.2010.511560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hanel, P. (2006). Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature. Technovation, 26(8), 895–931. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hargittai, E. (2007). The social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of search engines: An introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 769–777. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00349.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heath, D., Allum, D., & Dunckley, L. (1994). Introductory logic and formal methods. Henley-on-Thames: Alfred Waller.Google Scholar
  52. Helgesson, K. S., & Mörth, U. (Eds.). (2013). The political role of corporate citizens: An interdisciplinary approach., Palgrave studies in citizenship transitions series New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Hildebrandt, M. (2013). Balance or trade-off? Online security technologies and fundamental rights. Philosophy & Technology, 26(4), 357–379. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0104-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hinman, L. (2005). Esse est indicato in google: Ethical and political issues in search engines. International Review of Information Ethics, 3(6), 19–25.Google Scholar
  55. Hinman, L. (2008). Searching ethics: The role of search engines in the construction and distribution of knowledge. In A. Spink & M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web search (pp. 67–76). Information Science and Knowledge Management 14. Berlin: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7_5
  56. Hoare, C. A. R. (1972). Structured programming. In O. J. Dahl, E. W. Dijkstra, & C. A. R. Hoare (Eds.) (pp. 83–174). London: Academic Press Ltd. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1243380.1243382
  57. Huberman, B. A. (2003). The laws of the web: Patterns in the ecology of information. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Hull, G., Lipford, H. R., & Latulipe, C. (2011). Contextual gaps: Privacy issues on facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(4), 289–302. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9224-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Human Rights Council of the United Nations. (2012). U.N. human rights council: First resolution on internet free speech. http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403231_text
  60. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 222009. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=222009
  61. Jacky, J. (1997). The way of Z: Practical programming with formal methods. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Johnson, D. G. (2009). Computer ethics (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  63. Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Debiasing through law. In Working paper 11738. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11738
  64. Karp, D. J. (2009). Transnational corporations in ‘bad States’: Human rights duties, legitimate authority and the rule of law in international political theory. International Theory, 1(01), 87. doi:10.1017/S1752971909000074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kerr, I. (2002). Internet users dependence and the duty of loyalty. In T. Mendina & B. Rockenbach (Eds.), Ethics and electronic information (pp. 166–176). North Carolina: McFarland Press.Google Scholar
  66. Kiss, A., & Szőke G. L. (2015). Evolution or revolution? Steps forward to a new generation of data protection regulation. In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, & P. de Hert (Eds.), Reforming European data protection law (pp. 311–31). Law, Governance and Technology Series 20. Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8_13
  67. Laidlaw, E. (2008). Private power, public interest: An examination of search engine accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17(1), 113–145. doi:10.1093/ijlit/ean018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Laidlaw, E. (2010). A framework for identifying internet information gatekeepers. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(3), 263–276. doi:10.1080/13600869.2010.522334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lampinen, A., Lehtinen, V., Lehmuskallio, A., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We’Re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 3217–26. CHI’11. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979420
  70. Lanier, J. (201)1. You are not a gadget: A manifesto (Reprint edition). New York: VintageGoogle Scholar
  71. Lessig, L. (1999). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  72. Lessig, L. (2007). In support of network neutrality. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for Information Society, 3(1), 185–196.Google Scholar
  73. Lev-On, A. (2009). The democratizing effects of search engine use: On chance exposures and organizational hubs. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1481901. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1481901
  74. Lev-On, A., & Manin, B. (2009). Happy accidents: Deliberation and online exposure to opposing views. In: T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  75. Lewandowski, D. (2011). The influence of commercial intent of search results on their perceived relevance. Preprint. February 8. http://eprints.rclis.org/17232/
  76. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Madden, M. (2012). Privacy management on social media sites. Pew Internet Report.Google Scholar
  78. Madelin, R. (2011). The evolving social responsibilities of internet corporate actors: Pointers past and present. Philosophy & Technology, 24(4), 455–461. doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0049-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2011). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Metoyer-Duran, C. (1993). Information gatekeepers. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 28, 111–150.Google Scholar
  83. Nagenborg, M. (2005). The ethics of search engines (special issue). International Review of Information Ethics 3.Google Scholar
  84. Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. New edition edition. Rydalmere: Coronet Books.Google Scholar
  85. Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.Google Scholar
  86. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. O’Hara, K. (2010). Intimacy 2.0: Privacy rights and privacy responsibilities on the World Wide Web. In J. Zittrain, J. Domingue, & N. Benn (Eds.). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268760/
  88. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm
  89. Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-0021-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pagallo, U. (2011). ISPs & rowdy web sites before the law: Should we change today’s safe harbour clauses? Philosophy & Technology, 24(4), 419–436. doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0031-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pandey, S, Roy, S., Olston, C., Cho, J. & Chakrabarti, S. (2005). Shuffling a stacked deck: The case for partially randomized ranking of search engine results. In Proceedings of 31st international conference on very large databases (VLDB) (pp. 781–92).Google Scholar
  93. Pariser, E. (2012). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pasquale, F. A. (2006). Rankings, reductionism, and responsibility. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 888327. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=888327
  95. Qi, M., & Edgar-Nevill, D. (2011). Social networking searching and privacy issues. Information Security Technical Report. doi:10.1016/j.istr.2011.09.005 Google Scholar
  96. Reding, V. (2012). The EU data protection reform 2012: Making Europe the standard setter for modern data protection rules in the digital age. European Commission. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/26&format=PDF
  97. Reger, C. M. (2004). Let’s swap copyright for Code: The computer software disclosure dichotomy. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 24, 215.Google Scholar
  98. Rosen, J. (2012). The right to be forgotten. Stanford Law Review Online, 64, 88.Google Scholar
  99. Rosen, J. (2015). Protecting privacy on the internet is the user’s responsibility. Philly-Archives. http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-05/news/31124410_1_new-privacy-policy-facebook-search-terms
  100. Santoro, M. A. (1998). Engagement with integrity: What we should expect multinational firms to do about human rights in China. Business and the Contemporary World, 10(1), 25–54.Google Scholar
  101. Schahczenski, C. (2008). Net neutrality, computing and social change. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 38(2), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2006). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility-business and society seen from a habermasian perspective. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 952013. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=952013
  103. Schermer, B. W., Custers, B., & van der Hof, S. (2014). The crisis of consent: How stronger legal protection may lead to weaker consent in data protection. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(2), 171–182. doi:10.1007/s10676-014-9343-8 Google Scholar
  104. Schwartz, P. (1999). Privacy and democracy in cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52(1999), 1607.Google Scholar
  105. Semitsu, J. P. (2011). From facebook to mug shot: How the dearth of social networking privacy rights revolutionized online government surveillance. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1782267. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1782267
  106. Shapiro, A. L. (2000). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know (2nd Printing ed.). New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, H. Jeff, Dinev, T., & Heng, X. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1016.Google Scholar
  108. Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1127888. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1127888
  109. Spinello, R. A. (2011). Privacy and social networking technology. International Review of Information Ethics, 16, 12.Google Scholar
  110. Spink, A., & Zimmer, M. (2008). Web search (Vol. 14). Information Science and Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  111. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. With a new afterword by the author edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Taddeo, M. (2010). Modelling trust in artificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Minds and Machines, 20(2), 243–257. doi:10.1007/s11023-010-9201-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Taddeo, M. (2013). Cyber security and individual rights, striking the right balance. Philosophy & Technology, 26(4), 353–356. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0140-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Taddeo, M. (2014). The struggle between liberties and authorities in the information age. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9586-0
  115. Tavani, H. (2014). Search engines and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/ethics-search/
  116. Tavani, H., & Grodzinsky, F. S. (2002). Cyberstalking, personal privacy, and moral responsibility. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 123–132. doi:10.1023/A:1019927824326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tavani, H., & Moor, J. H. (2001). Privacy protection, control of information, and privacy-enhancing technologies. SIGCAS Compututers and Society, 31(1), 6–11. doi:10.1145/572277.572278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Toffler, A., Heidi, T., & Newt, G. (1995). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the third wave (1st ed.). Kansas City: Turner Publishing.Google Scholar
  119. Turilli, M., Vaccaro, A., & Taddeo, M. (2010). The case of online trust. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3–4), 333–345. doi:10.1007/s12130-010-9117-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Turilli, M., Vaccaro, A., & Taddeo, M. (2012). Internet neutrality: Ethical issues in the internet environment. Philosophy & Technology, 25, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Van Couvering, E. (2007). Is relevance relevant? Market, science, and war: Discourses of search engine quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 866–887. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00354.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Vedder, A. (2001). Accountability of internet access and service providers—Strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 67–74. doi:10.1023/A:1011492109277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wang, N., Xu, H., & Grossklags, J. (2011). Third-party apps on facebook: Privacy and the illusion of control. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM symposium on computer human interaction for management of information technology, 4:1–4:10. CHIMIT’11. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2076444.2076448
  124. Weckert, J. (2005). Trust in cyberspace. In R. J. Cavalier (Ed.), The impact of the internet on our moral lives (pp. 95–120). Albany: University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  125. Wettstein, F. (2012). Silence as complicity: Elements of a corporate duty to speak out against the violation of human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(01), 37–61. doi:10.1017/S1052150X00000063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wolf, M. J., Miller, K. W., & Grodzinsky, F. S. (2009). On the meaning of free software. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(4), 279–286. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9207-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wolf, D., Ralf, K. W., & Pierson, J. (2014). Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 444–454. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. World Economic Forum. (2012). Unlocking the economic value of personal data balancing growth and protection. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IT_UnlockingValueData_BalancingGrowthProtection_SessionSummary.pdf
  129. Xu, H. (2012). Reframing privacy 2.0 in online social networks. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(4), 1077.Google Scholar
  130. Ziniti, C. (2008). Optimal liability system for online service providers: How Zeran v. America online got it right and web 2.0 proves it. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 583.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations