Content uploaded by Alexander Ronzhyn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander Ronzhyn on Mar 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Literature Review of Ethical Concerns in the Use of Disruptive Technologies in
Government 3.0
Alexander Ronzhyn
University of Koblenz-Landau,
Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
Nationales E-Government Kompetenzzentrum e.V.,
Schiffbauerdamm 40 – 10117 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: ronzhyn@uni-koblenz.de
Maria A. Wimmer
University of Koblenz-Landau,
Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
Nationales E-Government Kompetenzzentrum e.V.,
Schiffbauerdamm 40 – 10117 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: wimmer@uni-koblenz.de
Abstract— ‘Government 3.0’ as the new paradigm brings in new
disruptive technologies in the digitization process of the public
sector. The massive use of Artificial Intelligence, Machine
Learning, Big Data Analytics, Internet of Things and other
technologies in public service provisioning that have a potential
to significantly influence the life of a large number of citizens
demands for a thorough investigation of the ethical concerns.
Along a literature review, this paper investigates the ethical
issues associated with the implementation of disruptive
technologies in the public sector. In the first part of the paper,
ten categories of ethical concerns in e-government are identified.
Subsequently, these ten categories guide a more detailed review
of 74 articles dealing with specific ethical concerns in relation to
the implementation of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in e-
government. The literature review revealed important
similarities and differences in ethical issues relating to the two
technologies.
Keywords-ethics, government 3.0, e-government, disruptive
technologies.
I. INTRODUCTION
The discussion of ethics should be an integral part of e-
government research, in particular when new disruptive
technologies are to be deployed. Often however, ethical
considerations are relegated to the “Discussion” or “Future
research” sections of the papers. This paper therefore studies
existing literature on ethics in e-government. Furthermore,
ethical implications of the introduction of new disruptive
technologies in e-government are identified.
Ethics has been defined as “the art of living well” by
Aristotle (cited in [1]) and has been one of the most discussed
philosophical concept ever since [2]. Treviño et al. define
ethical behavior as “doing the right thing, showing concern
for people and treating people right, being open and
communicative, and demonstrating morality in one’s personal
life” [3, pp. 131–132]. Ethics in government refers to ethical
behavior and to the approach of organizing the processes and
rules of governance in a way that shows concern for citizens,
is transparent and accountable (cf. good governance principles
[4]).
Discussion of ethics in e-government lies on the
intersection of the areas of the ethics in government and the
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) ethics.
In his paper of 1986, Anderson identified four major ethical
issues in ICT: privacy, accuracy, property and accessibility
[5]. More than thirty years later these issues are even more
important and contentious than at the dawn of the Internet era,
for several reasons (particularly in regards to e-government):
firstly, the relationship between the government and a citizen
is unequal one: citizen is dependent and vulnerable [6];
secondly, ICTs have an effect on public values, and their
transformative potential should be also viewed in this
dimension [7][8]; thirdly, the landscape of the public sphere is
different from the private sphere as the ultimate aims of the
organizations involved are very different [9].
This paper studies the subject of ethical implementation of
e-government and the ethical introduction and use of the ICTs
in public sphere, while we do not discuss questions of ethical
decision-making by individual officials in government. The
research is a part of the Erasmus+ Gov 3.0 project
(https://www.gov30.eu), which aims to establish
Government 3.0 as a research domain. The project team
defines Government 3.0 as follows:
Government 3.0 refers to the use of new disruptive ICTs
(such as blockchain, big data and artificial intelligence
technologies), in combination with established ICTs (such
as distributed technologies for data storage and service
delivery) and taking advantage of the wisdom of crowd
(crowd/citizen-sourcing and value co-creation), towards
data-driven and evidence-based decision and policy
making. [10, p.2]
The Gov 3.0 project identifies and describes new
technologies, trends and concepts associated with the
Government 3.0 paradigm. Some of these technologies are
termed “disruptive” as they are likely to have significant
impact on how e-government will be shaped in the future.
Along the project, the authors conducted several workshops
discussing the Government 3.0 concept and the use of
disruptive technologies in public spheres. Ethical issues were
one of the most discussed topics along these workshops. Yet
despite ethics being one of the biggest concerns of academics
along the implementation of new technologies, no systematic
review of literature on ethics in e-government has been found.
In this paper, we therefore investigate ethics in the implemen-
tation of the most significant disruptive technologies, namely
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section II presents
the research methodology of the paper and outlines the
research questions, Section III presents results of the literature
review of the ethical considerations in e-government,
85Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
identifying main ethical themes in the research. In Section IV,
we present the results of the literature review of the ethical
issues concerning AI and Big Data use in Government 3.0.
Section V discusses the results of the literature review and
concludes with an outlook on future research on ethics in e-
government and by reflecting the limitations of the paper.
II. METHODOLOGY
The aim of the paper is to scope the understanding of
ethics in e-government and spotting the needs for ethical
considerations in Government 3.0, specifically with new
disruptive technologies and technological trends. The paper is
descriptive and based on a systematic literature review.
Three research questions guide this research:
1. What are the main ethical considerations within the
e-government domain?
2. What ethical issues can be identified concerning the
implementations of AI and Big Data within e-government?
3. What are the research needs concerning ethical
issues of disruptive technologies in e-government?
Following Kitchenham and Charters [11], the articles were
collected from the four databases: SpringerLink
(http://link.springer.com/), IEEE Xplore
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/), ACM (http://dl.acm.org/)
and DGRL (V. 14, only for the first stage). The search was
carried out in autumn 2018. Search was restricted to the title
and abstract of the papers and was with the search string:
“ethics AND (‘digital government’ OR ‘e-government’)”.
This allowed identifying main ethical considerations and
themes in e-government, presented in Section III. Reviewing
the results of the searches ensured that chosen papers focus on
ethical issues, i.e., papers that did not include ethical issues as
a main or at least a secondary topic, were not published in a
peer-reviewed journal or conference proceeding or were not
accessible in full-text were excluded (exclusion criteria).
For the second stage, literature on ethical issues of the
specific technologies was searched and reviewed. The search
strings “AI | Artificial Intelligence | Big Data AND (‘ethical
issues’ OR ‘ethics’)” were used, resulting initially in 645
references. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 74 papers
were left (27 AI, 47 Big Data papers). First exclusion was
made after examining metadata of the articles, while the
second exclusion was based on full-text scans of the articles.
Out of the remaining papers, we extracted ethical issues
applicable to the use of these technologies in e-government.
To analyze ethics aspects specifically related to the
disruptive technologies, we used the concept-centric approach
suggested by Webster and Watson [12]. For example, the list
of broad ethical themes resulting from the first review cycle
of ethics was used to codifying the presence or absence of the
theme in each paper on ethics in AI and Big Data. The results
of this literature review are described in Section IV.
III. ETHICS IN E-GOVERNMENT
Literature review identified 22 articles focusing on ethics
in e-government. Table I lists the ten ethical considerations in
e-government along with the literature. Subsequently, we
summarize the main aspects of these ethical considerations.
TABLE I. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN E-GOVERNMENT
Ethical considerations in
e-government
Articles reviewed
Inclusivity
[6], [7], [9], [13]–[18]
Privacy
[6], [16], [17], [19]–[25]
Data use
[6], [21], [24], [26]
Quality/ Accuracy of information
[9], [23], [25]
Transparency
[7]
Accountability
[19], [27]
Information ownership
[20], [23]
Trust
[6], [7], [9], [19], [23], [28]
Alignment of values
[13], [17], [23], [29], [30]
Cost
[6], [16], [25]
Inclusivity refers to the concern about the inability of some
groups of citizens to make use of the digital government
services. It is discussed in the context of the digital divide
either within a society or between countries. Most common
factors causing digital divide are disparity in access to
technology, wealth, education or age-related differences [14].
Inclusivity is a significant concern as in some cases e-
government services are replacing the traditional ways to
interact with the government, so citizens who are unable to
use the new services are put in significant disadvantage.
Privacy is the concern about the unauthorized or
inappropriate use of individual information by the government
or other actors. Privacy is the most discussed ICT-related
ethical issue, especially after the advent of social media and
large-scale personal data collection [31].
Data use refers to the concern about inappropriate use of
collected data. This includes for example the aggregation of
data from different sources to infer new information or to de-
anonymize individual citizens. This is not a new issue [32],
however with the increase of the amount of data about any
particular person, cross-referencing different databases has
become a significant concern, threatening citizens’ privacy.
Concerns on quality and accuracy of information relate to
the imperfect digitalization of certain data in the transition to
digital services. Data errors or incomplete information in
databases may result in additional costs for a citizen [25].
Transparency is a concern that certain processes in e-
government may become black boxes, impossible to
understand by individual citizens. Lack of transparency may
lead to the inequality of treatment, when certain decisions are
made using invisible decision processes based on data only
available to the system [24].
Accountability is related to transparency and concerns the
responsibility of government toward an individual citizen in
case of problems with or misuse of the digital government
system. Accountability is necessary to improve citizen trust in
e-government [33].
Information ownership is about the possibility of the
digital government system’s user to change or restrict access
to one’s own information. It also concerns the re-use of certain
information from the e-government systems by the third
parties [34][35].
Trust is a general consideration of the effect that the
automatization (and associated de-humanization) of the
government services may have on an individual citizen. It also
encompasses the issues of government control and
surveillance [7][31].
86Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
Alignment of values refers to the mismatch between the
values of the government and the citizens. Sometimes
motivation of the government to introduce digital services
(e.g. cutting costs, improving efficiency) may not be aligned
with the interests of the citizens, who value accountability and
inclusivity of the services [6][16]. This concern is connected
to the inclusivity and trust concerns. The discussion of values
in this context also touches on the differences of attitudes to
the free speech versus security dilemma [17][36] and the
difference between values across countries, i.e., imposing
western values in the developing countries [13].
Cost consideration refers not only to the financial cost of
implementing and running the digital government services but
also trade-offs for the citizens, associated with the
implementation of e-government services: ensuring inclusive
access to government services may increase the workload for
the civil servants and thus the cost of public services [6].
IV. ETHICAL ISSUES IN GOVERNMENT 3.0
The second stage of the literature review identifies specific
ethical issues related to the new disruptive technologies AI
and Big Data in e-government. The issues are categorized
along the 10 ethical considerations identified in Section III.
A. Artificial Intelligence
The use of AI in government is expected to increase as
well as the significance of its effects on issues with moral
component [37][38]. Literature distinguishes between
‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) and ‘Artificial General
Intelligence’, A(G)I. “AI in e-government” refers to the use of
elements of artificial intelligence to facilitate some of the
services and processes, while A(G)I relates to autonomous
decision-making and AI-supported robots in the society in
future [39]. While the latter has implication for government as
well [37], it is not part of our current investigations, as we
focus on current implementations of AI in e-government.
TABLE II. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF AI IN E-GOVERNMENT
Ethical consideration in
e-government
Supporting literature
Inclusivity
[40]–[45]
Privacy
[45]–[49]
Quality/ Accuracy of
information
[46]
Transparency
[37], [47]
Accountability
[37], [45], [47]–[52]
Information ownership
[53]
Trust
[37], [40], [47], [54], [55]
Alignment of values
[37], [42], [44]–[48], [53], [55]–[60]
Cost
[41], [42], [48], [61], [62]
Of the literature reviewed, 27 papers (Table II) are dealing
with ethical issues in the application of AI. Most common
categories of the ethical concerns mentioned are values (14),
accountability (9), privacy (8), inclusivity (6) and cost (6). In
most of the cases, the issues relate to the AI-assisted Big Data
use for decision making (both autonomous by AI or AI-
assisted). The most common ethical issues in each category
are described below.
1) Major issues
Accountability: The concerns of this category relate to the
automated decision-making by AI systems. Who is
responsible or liable for AI making a bad decision (ethically,
legally or otherwise)? This is a significant concern in private
sector (especially relating to the autonomous vehicles), but
also a huge issue in government, where decisions can have
implications on a very large scale [52]. Thus the question of
liability should not be only discussed when implementing the
decision-making systems but also be explicitly addressed in
laws [50][51].
Value alignment: while the decisions made by the
autonomous AI systems should be ideally based on hard data,
there is a concern that such decisions might not be objective
[48]. What values should be programmed into the AI making
complex data-based decisions is an open question [50][59].
For simple decisions, rules may be straightforward. For some
other, choosing between two sub-optimal options may amount
to the value judgment [55]. Ensuring transparency and
providing sufficient discussions of such algorithms may help
address such concerns [55][56].
Privacy: Ethical concerns include using AI for surveil-
lance [45], for profiling [46] and the leakage of personal data
(especially in sensitive settings like healthcare) [48][49]).
Inclusivity: AI may also increase inequality between those
who control AI and other people [44][45]. The effect of AI on
the society needs to be studied to ensure inclusive realization
with respect to human rights [40][42][43].
Cost: AI can be a costly endeavor, especially in regard to
indirect costs: the increase of automation and move towards
automated decision-making is forecast to lead to a profound
shift in the structure of the labor market [42][48][61]. Brandy
argues that changes may affect public services twofold:
directly, when some public officials will lose their jobs as
services will be automated; and indirectly, when the increase
in unemployment will lead to the increasing pressure on the
public sector [62].
2) Minor issues
Transparency: AI systems need to be able to "explain"
why a certain decision has been made [37].
Trust: There is an issue of trust towards autonomous or AI-
assisted decisions [40][55], especially in sensitive settings like
healthcare [54].
B. Big Data
Big Data already plays an important role in many
domains, for example: disaster management [63], healthcare
[64][65], food security [66], law enforcement [67] and smart
cities [68]. In some cases, Big Data is used for automated
decision making, sometimes in conjunction with AI [69].
Ethics and ethical issues emerged as one of the important
topics in the Big Data literature review by Lu and Liu [70]
appearing in 97 of the collected sources. Other major topics
included healthcare applications of Big Data and privacy
(which was the fourth most prominent topic related to Big
Data overall, trailing only behind technology-related
keywords).
87Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
The review identified 47 papers dealing with ethical
issues in Big Data as shown in Table III. Most named ethical
concerns are privacy (40), data ownership (10), data accuracy
(9), values (9), data use (6) and inclusivity (6). The
descriptions of these ethical concerns along Big Data use in
e-government follow below.
TABLE III. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF BIG DATA IN E-
GOVERNMENT
Ethical consideration in e-
government
Supporting literature
Inclusivity
[67], [69], [71]–[74]
Privacy
[34], [48], [65], [67], [71]–[106]
Data use
[77], [79], [86], [90], [107], [108]
Quality/ Accuracy of
information
[65], [77], [95]–[97], [99], [100],
[102], [109]
Transparency
[74], [81], [110]
Accountability
[48], [74], [75], [110]
Information ownership
[34], [48], [69], [71], [78], [85],
[97], [98], [106], [111]
Trust
[95], [105]
Alignment of values
[34], [48], [77], [81], [91], [94],
[102], [107], [109]
Cost
[48], [65], [95], [98], [103]
1) Major issues:
Privacy: The main concern about Big Data is the ever-
increasing amount of personal information collected
[34][82], often without the subjects being aware of that
collection [90]. Even with de-personalised information there
is a significant concern about the cross-reference of data
between different datasets to identify the anonymised
individuals [76][80][112]. Given large amounts of
information collected and the improvements in Big Data
Analytics and Machine Learning technologies, it is very
difficult to guarantee full anonymity of data [78][96]. In the
government context, this concern is connected to the worry
about the surveillance state, when government "knows
everything" [88][104]. The benefits of the use of Big Data for
security and surveillance needs to be balanced against
personal freedom and privacy, otherwise it may lead to
significant erosion of trust towards government [100][101].
Data ownership: Organisations involved in data collection
(e.g. social media companies [113]) may accumulate very
large amounts of personal data. While the data may include
identifiable and potentially sensitive information, it does not
actually belong to the person: often individuals do not even
know what kind of information is collected about them
[90][106]. Ethical concerns regard making use of personal
data by organisations for their own benefit (or even for the
benefit of society), without explicit consent from individuals
[48][85].
Data accuracy: in e-government contexts, the collected
data can be used for decision making or provision of
personalised e-government services. Inaccurate or
incomplete data can lead to erroneous or biased decisions
[95][100][102]. These issues are more significant in the
public sector, as citizens cannot always opt-out of a service
and potential harm from incorrect data can be larger [109].
Data use: data misuse is a concern about the use of citizen
data for purposes other than ones, for which an explicit
consent has been given [86][90][108] or a legal ground exists.
However, in a dynamically evolving field of e-government it
may not be easy to predict every possible scenario, in which
the data might be used. A balance should be found for ethical
use of data, which would still allow creating innovative
public services [79][107].
Alignment of values: similar to the issues discussed in AI,
the use of Big Data may lead to the conflict between the
values of the government and citizens: between individual
and public good [81][94]. It is also necessary to consider the
implications of the decisions based on the biased Big Data for
the societal stability [48][102].
2) Minor issues
Inclusivity: there is a certain risk of the discrimination
based on the dataset used. This can lead to stigmatisation
[72], wrong identification in criminal cases [67] and
increasing digital divide [71].
Transparency and accountability: in public sector it is
important to indicate when and how the data is collected and
for what purposes is it used [74][92], while the algorithm
creators need to be accountable for their product [48][110].
Trust: improper management of data may lead to the
issues with citizen trust towards government. Data
management becomes an important concern for the agencies
dealing with Big Data, requiring skills and effort [95][105].
Costs: there are cost issues related to the storage and
processing of Big Data. By definition Big Data requires
significant resources that need to be diverted from elsewhere.
Implementing Big Data-based decision making systems, it is
necessary to assess the possible trade-offs [48][65][98].
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Deploying disruptive technologies in public services
brings new ethical challenges that need to be addressed by the
researchers and practitioners of e-government. From the
literature research, we extracted ten ethical considerations
that should be carefully reflected along each project aiming
at deploying disruptive technologies in e-government.
Ensuring that the implementation of new services properly
addresses the inclusivity, privacy, data use, data accuracy,
accountability, ownership, trust, alignment of values and cost
concerns will help to move towards more responsible design
and implementation of the new Government 3.0 paradigm.
This research provides a description of ethical issues in AI
and Big Data along the ten ethical considerations. Ethical
concerns in the use of AI relate mostly to the accountability
of autonomous decision-makers (who is accountable for AI
making wrong decision?) and value alignment (what will be
the basis for AI decisions?). Privacy and inclusivity are other
important issues.
In Big Data, the main concern is privacy: what data should
be collected and for what purposes? Information ownership
and consent are important ethical issues as well. There is a
significant worry about the improper use of Big Data for
88Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
surveillance, there is an apparent need for ethical discussion
regarding the limits of data collection and balancing the
benefits of Big Data with its drawbacks.
Finally, the need for legal frameworks and regulation of
the use of disruptive technologies arises in both, AI and Big
Data ethical discussions [37][51][85][95].
Kidder [114] argues that ethical responsibilities increase
with the increase of potential harm resulting from an unethical
decision. Both AI and Big Data offer significant benefits for
public sector, at the same time having considerable potential
for misuse. With the widespread use of ICTs by the
governments and digital transformation of governance
processes, main ethical concerns shift from the individual
decision-making by government officials to the discussion of
ethical implementation and management of ICTs and tools in
public sector.
Therefore, further research is needed to provide adequate
frameworks along the introduction of disruptive technologies
in e-government, which help to provide answers to the ethical
considerations described in Sections III and IV guiding
researchers and practitioners in the assessment of ethics.
Further empirical and theoretical research is necessary to
address the issues arising from the implementation of
disruptive technologies and provide a basis for drafting legal
framework regulating these technologies.
Future research should also assess ethics in the
implementation of other disruptive technologies identified as
a part of the Government 3.0 paradigm [115] (e.g.,
Augmented and Virtual Reality (see [116] for a discussion of
ethical challenges), Internet of Things, Blockchain, etc.).
Limitations of the research conducted in this paper may be
imposed by the methodology chosen: some relevant papers
dealing with ethical issues may have been excluded if they had
no “ethics/ ethical issues” in their title or abstract. Likewise,
there are some papers that might not be in any of the databases
used for the literature review, but still contain valuable
information. A more extensive literature review is needed to
overcome these limitations. Despite these limitations, we are
confident that the literature review presented here is
representative enough to provide valuable insights in the
ethical issues in e-government and provide useful outline of
the future research directions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is developed in the context of the Gov 3.0
Project. It was funded by the Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliance,
Project Reference No. 588306-EPP-1-2017-1-EL-EPPKA2-
KA.
REFERENCES
[1] E. M. Hartman, “Socratic questions and aristotelian answers:
A virtue-based approach to business ethics,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol.
78, no. 3, pp. 313–328, 2008.
[2] D. Guttmann, Ethics in social work: A context of caring.
Routledge, 2013.
[3] L. K. Treviño, L. P. Hartman, and M. Brown, “Moral Person
and Moral Manager: How Executives Develop a Reputation for
Ethical Leadership,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 42, no. 4, pp.
128–142, 2000.
[4] OECD, OCDE, “The OECD principles of corporate
governance,” Contaduria y Adm., no. 216, pp. 183–194, 2004.
[5] R. O. Mason, “Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age,”
MIS Q., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5–12, 1986.
[6] J. B. Berger, “Coercive E-Government Policy Imposing Harm:
The Need for a Responsible E-Government Ethics,” Proc. 49th
Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 2830–2839, 2016.
[7] F. Bannister and R. Connolly, “ICT, public values and
transformative government: A framework and programme for
research,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 119–128, 2014.
[8] L. Royakkers, J. Timmer, L. Kool, and R. van Est, “Societal
and ethical issues of digitization,” Ethics Inf. Technol., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 127–142, 2018.
[9] H. Mullen and D. S. Horner, “Ethical Problems for e-
Government: An Evaluative Framework,” Electron. J. e-
Government, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 187–196, 2004.
[10] G. V. Pereira et al., “Scientific foundations training and
entrepreneurship activities in the domain of ICT-enabled
governance,” in Proc. 19th Annu. Int. Conf. dg.o ’18, pp. 1–2.
[11] B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing
Systematic Literature reviews in Software Engineering
Version 2.3.,” EBSE, UK, 2007.
[12] J. Webster and R. T. Watson, “Analyzing the past to prepare
for the future,” MIS Q., pp. xiii–xxiii, 2002.
[13] S. Basu, “Digital Divide, Digital Ethics, and E-government,”
in ICTs in Developing Countries, London: Palgrave Macmillan
UK, 2016, pp. 161–169.
[14] E. Mordini et al., “Senior citizens and the ethics of e-
inclusion,” Ethics Inf. Technol., vol. 11(3), pp. 203–220, 2009.
[15] E. Easton-Calabria and W. L. Allen, “Developing ethical
approaches to data and civil society: from availability to
accessibility,” Innovation, vol. 28(1), pp. 52–62, 2015.
[16] B. N. Fairweather and S. Rogerson, “Towards morally
defensible e-government interactions with citizens,” J. Inf.,
Commun. Ethics Soc., vol. 4(4), pp. 173–180, 2006.
[17] N. Kapucu, “Ethics of Digital Government,” in Encyclopedia
of Digital Government, A.-V. Anttiroiko and M. Malkia, Eds.
IGI Global, 2007, pp. 745–748.
[18] J. W. Weiss, G. J. Gulati, D. J. Yates, and L. E. Yates, “Mobile
broadband affordability and the global digital divide - An
information ethics perspective,” Proc. HICSS, vol. 2015–
March, pp. 2177–2186, 2015.
[19] J. Lodge, “The dark side of the moon: Accountability, ethics
and new biometrics,” in Second generation biometrics: The
ethical, legal and social context, Springer, 2012, pp. 305–328.
[20] R. Heersmink, J. van den Hoven, N. J. van Eck, and J. den van
Berg, “Bibliometric mapping of computer and information
ethics,” Ethics Inf. Technol., vol. 13(3), pp. 241–249, 2011.
[21] R. Domanski, E. Estevez, E. Styrin, M. Alfano, and T. M.
Harrison, “Toward an ethics of digital government,” Proc. 19th
Annu. Int. Conf. dg.o ’18, pp. 1–4, 2018.
[22] I. Büschel, R. Mehdi, A. Cammilleri, Y. Marzouki, and B.
Elger, “Protecting Human Health and Security in Digital
Europe: How to Deal with the ‘Privacy Paradox’?,” Sci. Eng.
Ethics, vol. 20(3), pp. 639–658, 2014.
[23] G. Kaisara and S. Pather, “Relevance of Ethics in e-
Government: An Analysis of Developments in the WWW era,”
in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on E-
Government, 2010, pp. 45–53.
[24] P. Henman, “E-Government, Targeting and Data Profiling,” J.
E-Government, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 79–98, Dec. 2005.
[25] R. E. Anderson, “Ethics and Digital Government,” in Digital
89Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
Government: Principles and Best Practices, 2004.
[26] D. Goroff, J. Polonetsky, and O. Tene, “Privacy Protective
Research: Facilitating Ethically Responsible Access to
Administrative Data,” Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci., vol.
675(1), pp. 46–66, 2018.
[27] P. Henman, “E-Government, Targeting and Data Profiling,” J.
E-Government, vol. 2(1), pp. 79–98, Dec. 2005.
[28] G. Sharma, X. Bao, and L. Peng, “Public Participation and
Ethical Issues on E-governance: A Study Perspective in
Nepal,” Electron. J. e-Government, vol.12(1), pp. 82–96, 2014.
[29] E. Wihlborg, H. Larsson, and K. Hedström, “‘The computer
says no!’ - A case study on automated decision-making in
public authorities,” Proc. HICSS, vol. 2016–March, pp. 2903–
2912, 2016.
[30] A. V. Roman, “Framing the Questions of E-Government
Ethics: An Organizational Perspective,” Am. Rev. Public Adm.,
vol. 45(2), pp. 216–236, 2015.
[31] F. Belanger and J. S. Hiller, “A framework for e-government:
Privacy implications,” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 12(1
SPEC. ISS.), pp. 48–60, 2006.
[32] R. O. Mason, “Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age,”
MIS Q., vol. 10(1), pp. 5–12, 1986.
[33] E. W. Welch, C. C. Hinnant, and M. J. Moon, “Linking citizen
satisfaction with e-government and trust in government,”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, pp.
371–391. 2005.
[34] L. Voronova and N. Kazantsev, “The Ethics of Big Data:
Analytical Survey,” in 2015 IEEE 17th Conf. on Business
Informatics, 2015, pp. 57–63.
[35] R. Heersmink, J. van den Hoven, N. J. van Eck, and J. den van
Berg, “Bibliometric mapping of computer and information
ethics,” Ethics Inf. Technol., pp. 241–249, 2011.
[36] G. A. Sandy, “Mandatory ISP filtering for a clean feed to
australian internet subscribers,” 15th Am. Conf. Inf. Syst. 2009,
AMCIS 2009, vol. 10, pp. 6951–6958, 2009.
[37] A. Dameski, “A Comprehensive Ethical Framework for AI
Entities: Foundations,” in Artificial General Intelligence, M.
Iklé, A. Franz, R. Rzepka, and B. Goertzel, Eds. 2018, pp. 42–
51.
[38] A. Smith and J. Anderson, “Digital Life in 2025: AI, Robotics
and the Future of Jobs,” Pew Res. Cent., 6. 2014.
[39] M. Anderson and S. L. Anderson, “Machine ethics,” IEEE
Intelligent Systems, 2006.
[40] M. Brundage, “Artificial Intelligence and Responsible
Innovation,” in Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence,
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 543–554.
[41] F. Kile, “Artificial intelligence and society: a furtive
transformation,” AI Soc., vol. 28(1), pp. 107–115, 2013.
[42] W. Zhao, “Research on Social Responsibility of Artificial
Intelligence Based on ISO 26000,” 2019, pp. 130–137.
[43] P. Boddington, “Some Characteristic Pitfalls in Considering
the Ethics of AI, and what to do about them,” 2017, pp. 85–97.
[44] M. Drev, “Work Task Automation and Artificial Intelligence:
Implications for the Role of Government,” in At His
Crossroad, Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 35–41.
[45] T. Meek, H. Barham, N. Beltaif, A. Kaadoor, and T. Akhter,
“Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances
in artificial intelligence: A literature review,” in 2016 PICMET,
2016, pp. 682–693.
[46] K. Y. Lee, H. Y. Kwon, and J. I. Lim, “Legal Consideration on
the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology and Self-
regulation in Financial Sector: Focused on Robo-Advisors,”
2018, pp. 323–335.
[47] K. Shahriari and M. Shahriari, “IEEE standard review —
Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human
wellbeing with artificial intelligence and autonomous
systems,” in 2017 IEEE Canada IHTC, 2017, pp. 197–201.
[48] B. C. Stahl and D. Wright, “Ethics and Privacy in AI and Big
Data: Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation,”
IEEE Secur. Priv., vol. 16(3), pp. 26–33, 2018.
[49] K. Miller, “Can We Program Ethics into AI? [Reflections],”
IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 36(2), pp. 29–30, 2017.
[50] A. Etzioni and O. Etzioni, “AI assisted ethics,” Ethics Inf.
Technol., vol. 18(2), pp. 149–156, 2016.
[51] R. Rault and D. Trentesaux, “Artificial Intelligence,
Autonomous Systems and Robotics: Legal Innovations,” 2018,
pp. 1–9.
[52] Y.-J. Lee and J.-Y. Park, “Identification of future signal based
on the quantitative and qualitative text mining: a case study on
ethical issues in artificial intelligence,” Qual. Quant., vol.
52(2), pp. 653–667, 2018.
[53] D. Helbing et al., “Will Democracy Survive Big Data and
Artificial Intelligence?,” in Towards Digital Enlightenment,
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 73–98.
[54] J. Danaher, “Toward an Ethics of AI Assistants: an Initial
Framework,” Philos. Technol., vol. 31(4_, pp. 629–653, 2018.
[55] V. Vakkuri and P. Abrahamsson, “The Key Concepts of Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence,” in 2018 IEEE ICE/ITMC, 2018, pp.
1–6.
[56] E. Yudkowsky, “Complex Value Systems in Friendly AI,”
2011, pp. 388–393.
[57] J. M. Kizza, “New Frontiers for Computer Ethics: Artificial
Intelligence, Virtualization, and Cyberspace,” 2016, pp. 207–
225.
[58] S. D. Baum, “Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence,” AI
Soc., pp. 1-12, 2017.
[59] A. Giubilini and J. Savulescu, “The Artificial Moral Advisor.
The ‘Ideal Observer’ Meets Artificial Intelligence,” Philos.
Technol., vol. 31(2), pp. 169–188, 2018.
[60] S. A. Sora, “Artificial intelligence in a value based
management system,” Int. J. Value-Based Manag., vol. 1(1),
pp. 27–33, Feb. 1988.
[61] G. Su, “Unemployment in the AI Age,” AI Matters, vol. 3(4),
pp. 35–43, Feb. 2018.
[62] J. Bandy, “Automation moderation,” AI Matters, vol. 3(4), pp.
59–62, Feb. 2018.
[63] S. Akter and S. F. Wamba, “Big data and disaster management:
a systematic review and agenda for future research,” Annals of
Operations Research, pp.1–21, 2017.
[64] L. Yin, D. Fassi, H. Cheng, H. Han, and S. He, “Health Co-
Creation in Social Innovation: Design Service for Health-
Empowered Society in China,” Des. J., vol. 20(sup1), pp.
S2293–S2303, 2017.
[65] A. Stylianou and M. A. Talias, “Big data in healthcare: a
discussion on the big challenges,” Health Technol., vol. 7(1),
pp. 97–107, Mar. 2017.
[66] B. Evans, “Using Big Data to Achieve Food Security,” in Big
Data Challenges, London: Palgrave, 2016, pp. 127–135.
[67] M. Phillips, E. S. Dove, and B. M. Knoppers, “Criminal
Prohibition of Wrongful Re‑identification: Legal Solution or
Minefield for Big Data?,” J. Bioeth. Inq., vol. 14(4), pp. 527–
539, Dec. 2017.
[68] M. Batty, “Big data, smart cities and city planning,” Dialogues
Hum. Geogr., vol. 3(13), pp. 274-279, 2013.
90Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
[69] S. Monteith and T. Glenn, “Automated Decision-Making and
Big Data: Concerns for People With Mental Illness,” Curr.
Psychiatry Rep., vol. 18(112), p. 1-12, Dec. 2016.
[70] L. Y. Y. Lu and J. S. Liu, “The Major Research Themes of Big
Data Literature: From 2001 to 2016,” in 2016 IEEE CIT, 2016,
pp. 586–590.
[71] C. F. Breidbach, M. Davern, G. Shanks, and I. Asadi-Someh,
“On the Ethical Implications of Big Data in Service Systems,”
2019, pp. 661–674.
[72] H. Mamiya, A. Shaban-Nejad, and D. L. Buckeridge, “Online
Public Health Intelligence: Ethical Considerations at the Big
Data Era,” 2017, pp. 129–148.
[73] L. Kammourieh et al., “Group Privacy in the Age of Big Data,”
in Group Privacy, Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 37–66.
[74] M. Cuquet, A. Fensel, and L. Bigagli, “A European research
roadmap for optimizing societal impact of big data on
environment and energy efficiency,” in 2017 GIoTS, 2017, pp.
1–6.
[75] A. Zwitter, “The Network Effect on Ethics in the Big Data
Age,” in Big Data Challenges, London: Palgrave, 2016, pp.
23–34.
[76] P. A. Chow-White, M. MacAulay, A. Charters, and P. Chow,
“From the bench to the bedside in the big data age: ethics and
practices of consent and privacy for clinical genomics and
personalized medicine,” Ethics Inf. Technol., vol. 17(3), pp.
189–200, Sep. 2015.
[77] J. S. Saltz, “A Framework to Explore Ethical Issues When
Using Big Data Analytics on the Future Networked Internet of
Things,” in FNSS 2018, 2018, pp. 49–60.
[78] A. Richterich, “Using Transactional Big Data for
Epidemiological Surveillance: Google Flu Trends and Ethical
Implications of ‘Infodemiology,’” in The Ethics of Biomedical
Big Data, Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 41–72.
[79] G. O. Schaefer, M. K. Labude, and H. U. Nasir, “Big Data:
Ethical Considerations,” in The Palgrave Handbook of
Philosophy and Public Policy, Springer, 2018, pp. 593–607.
[80] J. N. Gathegi, “Clouding Big Data: Information Privacy
Considerations,” in IMCW2018, 2014, pp. 64–69.
[81] C. Garattini, J. Raffle, D. N. Aisyah, F. Sartain, and Z.
Kozlakidis, “Big Data Analytics, Infectious Diseases and
Associated Ethical Impacts,” Philos. Technol., Aug., pp. 1–17,
2017.
[82] J.-L. Monino, “Data Value, Big Data Analytics, and Decision-
Making,” J. Knowl. Econ., pp.1–12, Aug. 2016.
[83] D. Nunan and M. Di Domenico, “Big Data: A Normal Accident
Waiting to Happen?,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 145(3), pp. 481–491,
Oct. 2017.
[84] J. Collmann, K. T. FitzGerald, S. Wu, J. Kupersmith, and S. A.
Matei, “Data Management Plans, Institutional Review Boards,
and the Ethical Management of Big Data About Human
Subjects,” in Ethical Reasoning in Big Data, Cham: Springer,
2016, pp. 141–184.
[85] K. Pormeister, “The GDPR and Big Data: Leading the Way for
Big Genetic Data?,” in Annual Privacy Forum, 2017, pp. 3–
18.
[86] N. Dorasamy and N. Pomazalová, “Social Impact and Social
Media Analysis Relating to Big Data,” in Data Science and Big
Data Computing, Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 293–313.
[87] M. Steinmann et al., “Embedding Privacy and Ethical Values
in Big Data Technology,” in Transparency in Social Media,
Cham: Springer, 2015, pp. 277–301.
[88] H. Hijmans, “Internet and Loss of Control in an Era of Big Data
and Mass Surveillance,” 2016, pp. 77–123.
[89] A. Narayanan, J. Huey, and E. W. Felten, “A Precautionary
Approach to Big Data Privacy,” 2016, pp. 357–385.
[90] B. van der Sloot, “Is the Human Rights Framework Still Fit for
the Big Data Era? A Discussion of the ECtHR’s Case Law on
Privacy Violations Arising from Surveillance Activities,”
2016, pp. 411–436.
[91] B. Mittelstadt, “From Individual to Group Privacy in Big Data
Analytics,” Philos. Technol., vol. 30(4), pp. 475–494, 2017.
[92] M. Andrejevic, “Surveillance in the Big Data Era,” in PICT,
Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 55–69.
[93] Y. Wang, “Big Opportunities and Big Concerns of Big Data in
Education,” TechTrends, vol. 60(4), pp. 381–384, Jul. 2016.
[94] M. Fuller, “Some Practical and Ethical Challenges Posed by
Big Data,” 2016, pp. 119–127.
[95] D. Helbing, “Societal, Economic, Ethical and Legal Challenges
of the Digital Revolution: From Big Data to Deep Learning,
Artificial Intelligence, and Manipulative Technologies,” in
Towards Digital Enlightenment, Springer, 2019, pp. 47–72.
[96] X. Zhang and S. Xiang, “Data Quality, Analytics, and Privacy
in Big Data,” 2015, pp. 393–418.
[97] V. Morabito, “Big Data and Analytics for Government
Innovation,” in Big Data and Analytics, 2015, pp. 23–45.
[98] L. Taylor and C. Richter, “Big Data and Urban Governance,”
in Geographies of Urban Governance, Cham: Springer, 2015,
pp. 175–191.
[99] Aqeel-ur-Rehman, I. U. Khan, and S. ur Rehman, “A Review
on Big Data Security and Privacy in Healthcare Applications,”
in Big Data Management, Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 71–89.
[100]I. Stanier, “Enhancing Intelligence-Led Policing: Law
Enforcement’s Big Data Revolution,” in Big Data Challenges,
London: Palgrave, 2016, pp. 97–113.
[101]A. Gerdes, “Big Data—Fighting Organized Crime Threats
While Preserving Privacy,” in Using Open Data to Detect
Organized Crime Threats, Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2017, pp. 103–117.
[102]R. Kitchin, “The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism,”
GeoJournal, vol. 79(1), pp. 1–14, Feb. 2014.
[103]I. Olaronke and O. Oluwaseun, “Big data in healthcare:
Prospects, challenges and resolutions,” in 2016 FTC, 2016, pp.
1152–1157.
[104]J. Richards, “Needles in Haystacks: Law, Capability, Ethics,
and Proportionality in Big Data Intelligence-Gathering,” in Big
Data Challenges, London: Palgrave, 2016, pp. 73–84.
[105]M. Mulqueen, “Sustainable Innovation: Placing Ethics at the
Core of Security in a Big Data Age,” in Big Data Challenges,
London: Palgrave, 2016, pp. 61–71.
[106]M. Alemany Oliver and J.-S. Vayre, “Big data and the future
of knowledge production in marketing research: Ethics, digital
traces, and abductive reasoning,” J. Mark. Anal., vol. 3(1), pp.
5–13, Mar. 2015.
[107]P. Prinsloo and S. Slade, “Big Data, Higher Education and
Learning Analytics: Beyond Justice, Towards an Ethics of
Care,” in Big Data and Learning Analytics in Higher
Education, Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 109–124.
[108]R. Finn and A. Donovan, “Big Data, Drone Data: Privacy and
Ethical Impacts of the Intersection Between Big Data and Civil
Drone Deployments,” 2016, pp. 47–67.
[109]W. J. Radermacher, “Official statistics in the era of big data
opportunities and threats,” Int. J. Data Sci. Anal., vol. 6(3), pp.
225–231, Nov. 2018.
[110]M. Whitman, C. Hsiang, and K. Roark, “Potential for
91Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
participatory big data ethics and algorithm design,” in
Proceedings of the 15th PDC ’18, 2018, pp. 1–6.
[111]M. Sax, “Big data: Finders keepers, losers weepers?,” Ethics
Inf. Technol., vol. 18(1), pp. 25–31, Mar. 2016.
[112]V. Narayanan, P. N. Howard, B. Kollanyi, and M. Elswah,
“Russian Involvement and Junk News during Brexit,” 2017.
[113]L. Sax, S. Gilmartin, and A. Bryant, “Assessing response rates
and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys,” Res. High.
Educ., vol. 44(4), pp. 409–432, 2003.
[114]R. M. Kidder, “Ethics: A matter of survival,” Futurist, vol.
26(2), p. 10, 1992.
[115]Z. Lachana, C. Alexopoulos, E. Loukis, and Y. Charalabidis,
“Identifying the Different Generations of Egovernment: an
Analysis Framework,” in The 12th MCIS 2018, 2018, pp. 1–
13.
[116]C. Botella, A. Garcia-Palacios, R. M. Baños, and S. Quero,
“Cybertherapy: Advantages, limitations, and ethical issues,”
PsychNology J., 2009.
92Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-61208-685-9
ICDS 2019 : The Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Society and eGovernments
