Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1125–1138 | Cite as

The Struggle Between Liberties and Authorities in the Information Age

  • Mariarosaria Taddeo
Original Paper


The “struggle between liberties and authorities”, as described by Mill, refers to the tension between individual rights and the rules restricting them that are imposed by public authorities exerting their power over civil society. In this paper I argue that contemporary information societies are experiencing a new form of such a struggle, which now involves liberties and authorities in the cyber-sphere and, more specifically, refers to the tension between cyber-security measures and individual liberties. Ethicists, political philosophers and political scientists have long debated how to strike an ethically sound balance between security measures and individual rights. I argue that such a balance can only be reached once individual rights are clearly defined, and that such a definition cannot prescind from an analysis of individual well-being in the information age. Hence, I propose an analysis of individual well-being which rests on the capability approach, and I then identify a set of rights that individuals should claim for themselves. Finally, I consider a criterion for balancing the proposed set of individual rights with cyber-security measures in the information age.


Capability approach Cyber-security Individual rights Levels of abstraction Online persona Well-being 


  1. Abbate, J. (2000). Inventing the internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agre, P. (1997). Technology and privacy the new landscape. Retrieved 19 May 2013.
  3. Arquilla, J. (1998). Can information warfare ever be just? Ethics and Information Technology, 1(3), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Psychological Society. (2010). The social and psychological impact of online social networking, APS national psychology week survey.
  5. Cerf, V. G. (2011). First, do no harm. Philosophy and Technology, 24(4), 463–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chestnut, H. (1967). Systems engineering methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Coole, D., Frost, S., Bennett, J., Cheah, P., Orlie, M. A., & Grosz, E. (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copeland, B. J. (2006). Colossus: The secrets of Bletchley Park’s code-breaking computers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Denning, D. E. (1999). Information warfare and security. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Dipert, R. (2010). The ethics of cyberwarfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 384–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ess, C. (2012). At the intersections between internet studies and philosophy: “Who Am I Online?”. Philosophy & Technology, 25(3), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floridi, L. (2007). A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives. The Information Society, 23(1), 59–64. doi: 10.1080/01972240601059094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Floridi, L. (2013). Ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Floridi, L. (2014a). Protection of information and the right to privacy—A new equilibrium? Dordrecht: Springer.
  16. Floridi, L. (2014b). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Floridi, L. (2014c). The onlife manifesto: Being human in a Hyperconnected Era. Dordrecht: Springer.
  18. Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (Eds.). (2014). The ethics of information warfare. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Freed, L., & Ishida, S. (1995). History of computers. Hightstown, NJ: Ziff-Davis.Google Scholar
  20. Goold, B. J. (2007). Security and human rights. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  21. Griffin, J. (1988). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hasebrink, U. (2008). Comparing children’s online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU Kids Online: [European research on cultural, contextual and risk issues in children’s safe use of the internet and new media (2006–2009)]. London: EU Kids Online.
  23. Haybron, D. M. (2010). The pursuit of unhappiness: The elusive psychology of well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hohfeld, W. N. (2000). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange.Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman, A. (2006). Capabilities and freedom. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas, G. R. (2012). Just war and cyber conflict “Can there be an ‘Ethical’ Cyber War?” Presented at the Naval Academy Class 2014. Google Scholar
  27. Maan, A. K. (1999). Internarrative identity. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  28. MacIntyre, A. (1989). The virtues, the unity of a human life and the concept of a tradition. In Why narrative? Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  29. MacIntyre, A. C. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mill, J. S. (2002). On liberty. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  31. Moor, J. H. (1997). Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 27(3), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nissenbaum, H. (1998). Protecting privacy in an information age: The problem of privacy in public. Law and Philosophy, 17(5–6), 559–596.Google Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsaretti, S. (2005). Endorsement and freedom in Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Economics and Philosophy, 21(1), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oosterlaken, I. (2012). The capability approach, technology and design. Dordrecht and New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3879-9.
  36. Pidd, M. (2004). Systems modelling: Theory and practice (1st ed.). Chichester and Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Price, M. E. (2002). Media and sovereignty: The Global information revolution and its challenge to state power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sapouna, M., Wolke, D., Vannini, N., Watson, S., Woods, S., Schneider, W., et al. (2011). Individual and social network predictors of the short-term stability of bullying victimization in the United Kingdom and Germany. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schechtman, M. (2007). The constitution of selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, I, 197–220.Google Scholar
  41. Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence, and U.S. foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Suler, J. (2004). The Online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sumner, L. W. (1996). Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Taddeo, M. (2011). Information warfare: A philosophical perspective. Philosophy & Technology, 25(1), 105–120. doi: 10.1007/s13347-011-0040-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taddeo, M. (2013). Cyber security and individual rights, striking the right balance. Philosophy and Technology, 26(4), 353–356.Google Scholar
  46. Taddeo, M. (2014). Just Information Warfare. Topoi. doi: 10.1007/s11245-014-9245-8.
  47. Taddeo, M. (forthcoming). Information warfare: The ontological and regulatory gap. APA Newsletter on Philosophy & Computer.Google Scholar
  48. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walters, G. J. (2001). Human rights in an information age: A philosophical analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations