Data Storage Ethics and the Freedom of Information Act

Introduction

Information technology often seems, especially in some of its more mundane business applications, to be about as far removed from areas of legal, ethical, and social concern as is possible. Communication and information, however, are the primary seat of power and decision-making within an organization and in relation to society as a whole. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that information systems and information technology professionals are in many ways the vanguard of ensuring that an organization's actions are legal, ethical, and socially responsible. IT professionals do not have paramount control over most organizations' actions, of course, but there are definitely situations in which these concerns must be taken into consideration.

In the hypothetical case at hand, a start-up system design company landed a contract with a government-linked company to design and implement a new information system. The team did their job too well, in the eyes of the client company's management, who feared that their necessary compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, coupled with easy access to all company information, would not be advantageous. The chief development officer of the design firm was asked to correct the "problems" with the system by limiting the amount of information it could reliably handle, or by making access to the information more time-consuming and difficult — and therefore more costly.

Legal Facts

The first concerns that need to be addressed before more abstract areas can be examined are those of legality. The Freedom of Information Act is not a non-enforceable guideline but rather a federally mandated order to all federal agencies and their agents — including the private yet government-linked company in this case (FOIA Update, 1996). Though remedies for perceived and known violations of the Freedom of Information Act may not be especially effective at inspiring adherence to the provisions of the law, the client company is nonetheless required to maintain full and accurate records pertaining to certain aspects of their business with the government, including decisions made and communications — made electronically or otherwise — relevant to the decision-making process (FOIA Update, 1996). Many other internal communications that took place within this private company would not have to be stored or delivered upon demand, as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to non-federal organizations; however, the company cannot legally avoid making the necessary information public upon request.

Not only is the company required to deliver this information upon request, but it is also required to make "reasonable" efforts to maintain an index of electronic communications and to make such records available to the public (FOIA Update, 1996). The company is not merely expected to behave in good faith in the maintenance and accessibility of its documents — it is legally required to do so.

In addition to being outright illegal, the company's desire to expend extra effort making the storage and retrieval of necessary documents more difficult is also ultimately more of a burden on the company than simple compliance would be. The Freedom of Information Act requires each government agency to publish a schedule of appropriate fees to be collected for the access, creation, and delivery of various documents. In addition to mandating that all agencies and their agents deliver information in any reasonable manner specified by the requesting party, the law also allows for the recovery of costs incurred through compliance (FOIA Update, 1996). Making access and retrieval more difficult will only burden the company itself, without producing the prohibitive mounting costs to the requestor that such a deliberate action is clearly — and illegally — intended to instigate.

Legally, the chief development officer of the information system design firm would not be held personally responsible for the client company's compliance — or lack thereof — with the Freedom of Information Act; indeed, no individual can be held personally responsible for the failure to produce requested information (FOIA Update, 1996). Though the company has already expressed intentions that are outright illegal under the law, it is not immediately clear that the chief development officer or the design company would themselves be breaking the law by complying with the client's request. Foreknowledge of a crime to be committed, however, should be ample dissuasion from taking such action.

Ethical Concerns

Decisions regarding how to store data, how much information to retain, and when it is permissible to delete or alter existing data — with or without a notation commenting on such deletion or alteration — represent some of the most common and, at times, most extreme ethical dilemmas faced by information technology professionals (Worthington, 2005). The ability to control and manipulate information is, as noted above, intimately related to decision-making power and power in general, and thus it can be a highly sensitive and controversial issue. Certain ethical guidelines and principles have been established that can be directly brought to bear on this issue, illuminating the egregious ethical problems embedded in the client company's request and the potential compliance of the chief development officer and the design firm.

It is through the availability of information that effective decisions can be made. Although full immersion in "oceans of data" is generally not the best way to analyze patterns or identify key features of a data set, the existence of reliable and efficient means of storing and accessing large amounts of information necessitates that such technologies be used to prevent harm and further the public good as much as possible (Arquilla, 2006). This is the very point of the Freedom of Information Act, and the company's deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and public knowledge is highly unethical. Access to information that depicts the company's use of and effect on public resources is the basic motivation behind the Freedom of Information Act; avoiding this requirement violates not only the letter of the law but also the ethical spirit that inspired it.

The demand for greater privacy for individuals and reduced transparency for private organizations has weakened in the face of growing security concerns and, more recently, a series of fraud and questionable accounting practices at well-respected and ostensibly upstanding organizations (Kvamme, 2001). Though the company in this scenario would not likely be involved in major threats to national security, its desire for privacy must also be weighed against the need for public protection — especially given the organization's links to the federal government, which is supposed to be responsive to the people. Avoiding the public disclosure of documents and information that affect the public, and that were created with public funding, is ethically repugnant on several levels. It would be equally repugnant for the design company or any of its officers to assist in executing the request for "improvements" to the well-functioning system.

Conclusion

In no way should the chief development officer or any other member of the design company assist in the destruction of their own product. A contract is presumably in place, which the company can clearly demonstrate was fulfilled. If the client company does not wish to use the information system they purchased, that is their decision; but the start-up design firm should not begin its business operations with a legally, ethically, and socially maladaptive project.

References

Arquilla, J. (2006). "Traces of ourselves: The ethics and politics of databases." Markula Center for Applied Ethics. Accessed 22 April 2010. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/databases.html

Amoroso, D. (2003). "Social issues in information systems." American Conference on Information Systems. Accessed 22 April 2010. http://galletta.business.pitt.edu/amcis2003/05ITMGT8_SocialIssues.htm

FOIA Update. (1996). Freedom of Information Act. Accessed 22 April 2010. http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

Garson, D., & Garson, G. (1995). Computer technology and social issues. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Kvamme, E. (2001). "Ethics and technology in the wake of September 11." Markula Center for Applied Ethics. Accessed 22 April 2010. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/kvamme.html

Worthington, T. (2005). "Ethics and the IT professional." University of Canberra Information Science and Engineering Seminar. Accessed 22 April 2010. http://www.tomw.net.au/2005/ethicsit.html