1. Objectives of the UNESCO Virtual Forum on INFOethics

The forum was proposed after the first UNESCO conference on Information Ethics, which took place in March 1997 in Monte Carlo. VF-INFOethics is not a substitute for meetings in a real-life environment – the advantage of face-to-face communication is too obvious and knowledge and experience with electronic forums is not yet wide-spread enough, at least not among UNESCO experts, who are normally not the typical Internet users (USA/Europe, male, highly-educated, 30 years old). But experimenting with electronic forums can provide UNESCO with knowledge about the potentials of the new medium and can contribute to a more extended word-wide awareness about the importance of information ethics in a globalizing information society. VF-INFOethics thus supports UNESCO’s objective as a world-wide laboratory of ideas, in this case via a forum on information ethics, identifying ethical principles, guiding action, devising immaterial strategies and mobilizing political leaders in their resolve to implement them. As potentials or value-added effects of electronic communication forums the following deserve mention:

• Electronic communication forums allow exchange of information between people who are not likely to meet in real life.
• Electronic communication forums, organized according to hypertext principles, allow flexible navigation in heterogeneous information material and can thus develop into a platform of knowledge with respect to the topic of the forum.
• Electronic communication forums, in a Web-based technical environment are normally organized in an asynchronous mode (although synchronous chat techniques or tele-conferencing facilities are becoming more and more available for forum purposes as well). Asynchronous communication allows quasi real-time reactions to the forum`s statements but also allows delayed reactions after a period of information gathering or, simply, of thinking.
• Electronic communication forums, compared with the high costs for real conferences with participants from all over the world, are a cheap technology once the technical equipment is available.
• Electronic communication forums, in particular when data-base supported, allow flexible adaptation to different users` needs/expectations, or to users` dialogue behaviour, and to different pre-established parameters such as access and editing rights.

Although the advantages of electronic forums are obvious, the hopes for VF-INFOethics were only moderately high because we could not expect that knowledge and experience with new electronic communication devices would be very advanced among UNESCO experts. This was all the more likely, given the fact that we tried to avoid an Anglo-saxon and Western-Europe dominated expertise and insisted instead on selecting people from all over the world. The particants were chosen on the basis of UNESCO expertise and recommendations from active members. Only these experts, altogether about 60, had the right to write, but the forum, as a WWW application, was open to the public for reading purposes.

As mentioned above, the forum’s main objective was to augment knowledge and public awareness on topics concerning information ethics and to provide UNESCO with recommendations for further action in the field of information ethics based on the world-wide electronic discussion among experts in the field.

In addition to statements from experts, additional information, for example references to pertinent literature on information ethics, to other web sites, to data bases, and to other discussion groups with a similar scope was provided by the central Constance monitoring group of VF-INFOethics. Additional links could be provided by all members of VF-INFOethics. VF-INFOethics has thus developed into an open forum, a platform, or a market place with numerous links to the world's knowledge on information ethics.

The INFOethics forum was carried out in two rounds. The first round lasted from October 97 until the end of the year 1998. The second round was opened for discussion as of Februar 20th 1998. At the end of round 2, UNESCO can be provided with recommendations for further action. It is very likely that the forum will continue to be an electronic floor for UNESCO-related discussions on INFOethics and will then be opened (also for writing purposes) to a broader UNESCO public or to the public in general. This, of course, will raise many new problems. In the near future, the forum will be used before, during and after the second UNESCO conference on INFOethics, which will take place in October 1998, again in Monte Carlo. The software, which was developed for VF-INFOethics and which is continously being improved, can be used for other UNESCO activities, in particular by national commissions for UNESCO or for educational purposes. At the moment, we are using the VF-INFOethics software for a virtually organized course on information ethics in the information science curriculum at the University of Konstanz, Germany.

The discussion was structured according to main topics which were chosen after an intensive pilot phase, in which experts in the field provided much useful information. From this input three main classes of topics (with sub-topics) were formed and commented on. The following figures display the main topics of the first round of discussion:

Each sub-topic of VF-INFOethics was chaired by an expert (topic chair) who was responsible for monitoring and summarizing the discussion in the sub-topic. Each section was introduced by central questions and a general statement. The questions and the introductory statement were continuously commented on by the other sections members or by all members of VF-INFOethics. Comments, once given, could not be changed but could be commented on again. A summary of the state of discussion in the respective section was provided at the end of the round by the section chair and was the basis for recommendations for UNESCO.

The forum was opened with a brief general statement about the concept of information ethics:

The following questions were formulated with respect to the role of UNESCO in information ethics in general:

The following questions were formulated with respect to the role of UNESCO on the topic ‚Information rich and information poor‘:

The discussion on this topic was rather intensive. As a result of the discussion on the topic ‚Information rich and information poor‘ the following recommendations were formulated.

• Bring net access to poor countries by putting existing resources to sensible use in order to promote the development of global and local information cultures and economies.
• Support the development of a World Information Ethos.
• Support concrete projects in information poor countries in order to create country-specific information centres.
• Public awareness on these matters through virtual forums, publications, and conferences should be promoted.
• Provide permanent, specific, and detailed knowledge of existing information activities in information poor countries.
• UNESCO should promote the rights of non-English-speaking-countries and their economic interests.
• UNESCO should promote topics in information ethics to be included in curricula at all levels.
• Promotion activities through international organizations should be based on grassroots efforts as well as on a decentralized and well coordinated basis.

The following questions were formulated with respect to the role of UNESCO on the topic Information as a public and/or a private good:

As the result of the discussion on the topic ‚Information as a public and/or private good‘ the following summary was formulated.

Topic 2.2 "Information as a public and/or a private good" stimulated some discussion about the status of information in modern societies. Some concern was expressed about the negative effects of modern information structures (virtualization) on the job market. The participants did not see any realistic alternative economic model by which the shortcomings of the neo-liberalism approach could be overcome. It was suggested that cooperatives may play a major role in the usage of information as a common good. UNESCO should not get involved in general abstract discussions about a new world order. Instead UNESCO should concentrate on feasible projects such as supporting efforts for the digitization of public information (as the world people's heritage) as a counterweight to the power of the market, where information is considered a commodity only.

The role of copyright should be reconsidered as well in order to define a new generally accepted fair use of information. By encouraging free access to the world's public knowledge (the people's own heritage) UNESCO can contribute to establishing a counterweight to the power of the market, where information is considered a commodity to be paid for. UNESCO should use a set amount of funds to support the digitization of public material (e.g. to finance portable scanners). The role of copyright (so far mainly used to enforce market rights) should be reconsidered. Particularly, the rights of users to access public materials should be balanced against the predominantly private exploitation of information. Preservation and transmission of information was considered as among the ethical responsibilities of the present for future generations.

The following questions were formulated with respect to the role of UNESCO on the topic ‚Trust, ownership, and validity of information in cyberspace‘:

Can UNESCO play an active role in establishing trust in information services and electronic markets, in particular when sensitive subjects are involved, such as medicine, law, or political information? Is UNESCO an appropriate and world-wide accepted institution to develop, maintain, and survey generally accepted quality criteria for the reliability and authenticity of information services? What is the role of UNESCO in establishing trust in machine intelligence and services such as intelligent agents or in keeping it under public control?

As the result of the discussion on the topic ‚Trust, ownership, and validity of information in cyberspace‘ the following summary with recommendations was formulated:

Topic 3.1 "Topics/questions with respect to trust, to ownership, and to validity of information in cyberspace" was discussed under the following subtopics: data security, machine intelligence, property rights, reduction of uncertainty, sky writing, trust by technology, truthworthiness, virtualization. The discussion focussed mainly on aspects of property rights and copyright and on the necessity of a free flow of information (as one of the main rights requiring protection in an open information society).

There was an innovative and provocative proposal to rethink the role of copyright: It doesn't make any sense for authors who already get paid by public institutions to receive additional copyright income. Giving up copyright income could break the circle of high prices and lack of access, at least in scientific environments. Access to the world's knowledge should have higher priority than supporting commercial interest in information commodities. A different answer may be required with respect to entertainment and literature.

On the other hand it was not considered realistic that authors would voluntarily give up commercial rights. Therefore it is not sufficient to change our attitude towards ownership and profit. A solution could be for publishing companies to pay a certain percentage of the author's income to the public, which is explicitly designed for supporting the construction of a powerful and royalty-free world wide public domain of information. This idea of sharing profits from knowledge products can be extended to all organizations which produce value-adding information/knowledge products originally based on publicly produced and financed primary/raw information for the market.

UNESCO is not either WIPO or WTO (although the protection of authors/publishers' rights cannot be ignored, it is not the main concern for UNESCO). Instead UNESCO must bring its own added value to the debate on intellectual property rights, and this means to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image, to give fresh impulse to popular education, and to support all means for the diffusion of knowledge. All scientific articles produced by public universities or public laboratories could be made freely available on the servers of these institutions. UNESCO should take the lead in a world wide movement to promote this public domain information, and present innovative ideas to ensure distribution and free access to it. In particular with respect to developing countries, economic barriers created by a purely market oriented approach towards knowledge and information need to be overcome. UNESCO should use all its prestige to convince governments and institutions involved in the information/knowledge industry all over the world that they should share profits from knowledge products (especially those which are originally based on publicly produced and financed primary/raw information) with public institutions. These institutions then can produce value-added free-access information for those who cannot afford to pay for it.

The following questions were formulated with respect to the role of UNESCO on the topic ‚Privacy, confidentiality, security, hate, violence in the Internet‘:

What are appropriate measures for UNESCO in order to diminish the amount of violence and hate in the Internet? Is UNESCO the appropriate organization for developing a world-wide code for information privacy? Is such a code desirable or possible? What are appropriate control structures if such a privacy/confidentiality code were ever to be agreed on? What can UNESCO do to encourage and establish the free flow of information in the traditional and new media

As the result of the discussion on the topic ‚Privacy, confidentiality, security, hate, violence in the Internet ‘ the following summary with recommendations was formulated:

Topic 3.2 "Topics/questions with respect to privacy, confidentiality, security, hate, violence" in the Internet was considered as highly culture-dependent. UNESCO should care much about children's interests on the Internet. The topic of children and the Internet has been the most politically explosive of all of the many controversial Internet-related topics. Parents worry that their children will use the Internet to access pornography and other adult material and that companies are collecting private, personal data from children. Some participants were optimistic that the information industry will develop new software tools for parents and that governments will take appropriate measures to protect privacy rights. Other were rather sceptical whether software lifeguards, filter mechanisms are adequate or sufficient means to protect us from Internet hate, violence, pornography, and other unwanted things and are particularly sceptical whether there is a need for new rules/laws to protect people, particularly children. From an information ethics point of view technological solutions for social problems may not always be adequate. And the confidence that governments will find adequate solutions for ethical problems in open information networks is not shared by everyone. The same problem arises with respect to hate in the Internet. We probably do not need additional laws to protect ourselves against personal hate in the Internet. Perhaps there is a need for new codes of politeness - being polite even in an anonymous communication situation – rather than a need for any additional legislation or basic change in the philosophy towards phenomena such as hate or violence in the Internet. There were no specific proposals on what UNESCO's role should be with respect to Internet phenomena such as hate, violence, pornography, drug dealing, or politically radical information. UNESCO's policy on technological and juridical solutions for these problems still needs to be discussed.

The discussion in the second round mainly focussed on problems of information inequity (overcoming information gaps) and the status and character of information (validity, ownership, public responsiblity).

Although the concept of information ethics was a topic of discussion in itself and was permanently referredto, there was no formal agreement about this concept besides general remarks such as that information ethics deals with principles of equality, justice and mutual respect under the conditions of a global information society. Global networks and electronic market places and information services (in the Internet and other prorietary networks) are the environment and the only means in which and through which information ethics develops.

One can doubt whether there is a need (or a possibility) for something like information ethics (or science ethics or market ethics) in addition to ethics in general. The principles of ethics in general – if any – would also be valid for information ethics in particular. The forum’s participants were particularly careful in simply transferring western ideas to a global information world and were also very concerned that the unification influence of the global Internet can lead to an unwanted dominant general and ethical culture. This is clearly to be seen on (ethical) topics such as property right, violence in the media, information access and information equity, individual freedom of information, where Western philosophical, political, and economic traditions dominate.

Information ethics is not a matter of abstract academic (philosophical) discussion and cannot result in a new (single) world order of information behaviour, but can be a permanent world-wide process of exchange of positions between people who are involved in structuring the new information world. The global information society is thus a platform for information ethics and the result of the discussion cannot be a single world information ethics but the development of an ethos that makes the public aware and sensitive of the need to take a responsible and not only merely economically determined approach towards information, its production, distribution and usage.

This is the major information ethic topic in the information society. The topic is in its global character comparable to ecological questions and should thus be treated on the same level of political decision-making and public disussion. There is a real need for an international information agenda. What VF-INFOethics thus recommends is the development of a world-wide public responsibilty for information equity (an information ethos) by establishing an institutionalized dialog on information policy issues at a world level, –some authors hold that a new UN/UNESCO information agency would be an approriate institutional means - and by supporting an open world forum (or many interlinked forums) on information ethics, using the electronic medium and other media as well. Both an institutionalized and a communicative approach will create global (and local!) information policies and information cultures (not: one global information policy and one information culture). This means that one should give up the ideal of a rational, clean and transparent ethical world information order, and see the multi-cultural reality not as a threat but as an opportunity.

The continuing globalization of all aspects of the production, distribution and usage of information is the central challenge for information ethics. The production of information is based on the need for information and refers to its content and quality. The distribution of information raises the question of information ownership and depends on the information resources in which information is represented and on the design and management of information market places where information can be accessed and exchanged. The usage of information is mainly a question of competence and money – being informationally educated in order to profit from the information resources and being able to pay for the costs of information usage. This is a (political) question of information equity or inequity or how to overcome information gaps.

Considering the importance of the global information society, it has turned out that the participants were mainly concerned about the growing gap between those who are able and willing to take advantage of modern information and communication technology and those who are not. The problem of information gaps cannot be restricted to the difference between developed and developing countries but is a problem in all societies, whatever their technological status. If access to information and the possibility to actively take part in the exchange of knowledge (to have the right to read and write in open information environments) is the necessary basis for all activities in our public and private life, then it is UNESCO‘s responsibility to support all activities which aim at establishing an information balance in the information society. A society is information-balanced when information gaps can be overcome. Therefore a consideration of information equity seems to be at the center of all ethical discussion. This is not a technological problem. It cannot be solved by providing everyone in the world with a computer and telecommunication equipment (although the importance of such a programme – to provide in principle everyone with the technological basis needed – should not be underestimated), but by solving the information problem.

The forum`s participants agreed that only a free market can develop powerful information market places, information systems and information goods but that there is a need for international organizations such as UNESCO and for other nation-wide activities to solve the global problem of information inequity. Overcoming information inequity does not necessarily mean that global information can be accessed from everywhere by everyone (and at no cost). The creation of content in an appropriate environment and the exchange of information among those who need it (for instance, the south communicating with the south and not being restricted to access of information from the north, as is the case today) is increasingly important. What seems to be a paradox in a global information environment, namely the demand to create and use regionally pertinent information, is actually a necessity and a requirement for information use.

The emphasis on information production, distribution and usage topics from an ethical point of view raises many questions and generates many sub-topics, such as the following ones:

• Given the fact that information is cost-intensive to produce and thus demands a economic basis – who/which institution and which level will be responsible for granting access to appropriate information for the use of local actors?
• How can a basic information supply be defined and guaranteed?
• Which models are available to find a fair compromise between market interests in getting information cost investment returned with a reasonable profit and public interest in giving everyone the chance to lead their private and public life on an information-secure basis?
• Which are appropriate models for such information compromises on a super-national level (overcoming gaps between information rich and information poor countries), on a national level (gaps within an information society), and on an individual level (gaps in information competence and education)?

As is often the case in communication-intensive matters, VF-INFOethics has raised more questions than it has answered. The only definite answer is that the discussion on information ethics needs to be continued, at all levels, within and outside UNESCO and using all available media, the electronic forum included.