fbpx
Articles

3 ethical issues in technology to watch for in 2021

/
January 4, 2021

2020 was a year that not only challenged the fortitude of our families but also the fabric of our nation. Last year we saw many complex ethical issues arise from our use of technology in society and as individuals. From the debates over the proper use of social media in society to the adoption of invasive technologies like facial recognition that pushed the bounds of our concepts of personal privacy, many of the ethical challenges exposed in 2020 will flow into 2021 as our society debates how to respond to these developments and how to pursue the common good together as a very diverse community.

Here are three areas of ethical concern with technology that we will need to watch for if we hope to navigate 2021 well.

Content moderation and Section 230

Some of the most talked about ethical issues in technology, even as 2021 is just getting started, are the debates over online content moderation, the role of social media in our public discourse, and the merits of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. If you are unfamiliar with Section 230 and the debates surrounding the statute, it essentially functions as legal protection for online platforms and companies so they are not liable for the information posted to their platforms by third party users.

In exchange for these protections, internet companies and platforms are to enact “good faith” protections and are encouraged to remove content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” But what exactly does “good faith” and “otherwise objectionable” mean in this context of the raging debates over the role of social media today? 

This question is at the heart of the debate over Section 230’s usefulness today. Some argue that platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others must do more to combat the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and fake news online. As platforms have engaged in labeling misleading content and removing posts that violate their community policies, many argue that these companies simply aren’t doing enough.

But on the other side of the aisle, some argue that these 230 protections are being used as a cover to censor certain content online—often in a partisan manner, being inconsistently applied (especially on the international stage), and may amount to violations of users’ free speech. They argue that 230 must be repealed or modified substantially in order to combat bias against certain types of political, social, or religious views.

As technology policy expert and ERLC Research Fellow Klon Kitchen aptly states, “All of these perspectives are enabled by vagaries surrounding the text of the law, the intent behind it, and the relative values and risks posed by large Internet platforms.” Regardless of where one lands in this debate, we will likely see inflamed conversations over this statute and the extent to which it should be maintained if at all.

Facial recognition surveillance

In what may feel like a Hollywood thriller plot, facial recognition surveillance technology is being deployed around our nation and the world, often without us realizing or even understanding how these tools work. Last January, Kashmir Hill of the New York Times broke a story about a little known facial recognition startup called Clearview AI that set off a firestorm over the use of these tools in surveillance, policing, and security. Thousands of police units across the country were testing or implementing facial recognition in the hopes of providing better identification of suspects and to keep our communities safer.

But for all of their potential benefits, these tools also have a flip side with extremely complex ethical considerations and dangers, especially when used in volatile police situations. Many of these algorithmic identification tools were also shown to misidentify people with darker skin more often than others because the systems were not trained properly or had inherent weaknesses in their design or data sets.

Throughout 2020, municipalities and state governments completely banned or substantially limited the use of facial recognition in their communities over the potential misuses as well as the racial divisions in our nation. The tools were thought to be too powerful, overly relied upon which could lead to false arrests or worse, or too invasive into the private lives of citizens. In 2021, we will likely see this trend of legislation on facial recognition systems continue as well as increased pressure on the federal government to weigh in on how these tools should be and can be used, especially in policing and government.

Outside of policing, there is likely to be substantial debate over how these tools are used in public areas and businesses as our society begins to open back up after the COVID-19 vaccines are more widely available. The potential for these tools to be used in identification, health screening, and more will lead to renewed debate over the ethical bounds at stake and the potential for real-life harm to those in our communities.

Right to privacy?

Outside of the growing concerns with surveillance technologies like facial recognition, there is considerable debate about the nature and extent of digital privacy in our technological society. Last year, the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) regulations went into effect, and we also saw the continued influence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from the European Union throughout the world. These pieces of legislation have challenged how many people think about the nature of privacy and have also raised a number of ethical concerns regarding what is known about us online, who knows it, how it is used, and what we can do with that data. Nearly every device and technology today captures some level of data on users in order to provide a personalized or curated experience, but this data capture has come under scrutiny recently across the political spectrum.

Today, some are asking if personal privacy is simply an outdated or unneeded concept or if we as citizens actually have an actual right to privacy? If we have a right to privacy, where is that right derived, and how does it align with our other rights to life and liberty? Are we to pursue moral autonomy, or is privacy actually grounded in human dignity? Many questions remain about how we should view privacy as a society and to what extent we should expect it in today’s digital world. As COVID-19 challenged many of our expectations concerning privacy, there will likely be a renewed focus on the role of technology in our lives and the extent to which the government has a role in these debates.

It is far too easy to take a myopic view of technology and the ethical issues surrounding its use in our lives. Technology is not a subset of issues that only technologists and policy makers should engage. These tools undergird nearly every area of our lives in the 21st century, and Christians, of all people, should contribute to the ongoing dialogue over these important issues because of our understanding of human dignity grounded in the imago Dei (Gen. 1:26-28).

Thankfully 2020 brought some of these issues to the forefront of our public consciousness. While 2021 will likely have a plethora of things to engage with, we should address the pressing ethical challenges that technology poses in order to present a worldview that is able to address these monumental challenges to our daily lives.

Jason Thacker

Jason Thacker serves as senior fellow focusing on Christian ethics, human dignity, public theology, and technology. He also leads the ERLC Research Institute. In addition to his work at the ERLC, he serves as assistant professor of philosophy and ethics at Boyce College in Louisville Kentucky. He is the author … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24