0011 Mahboobin 04:00
L012
APPLYING ENGINEERING ETHICS TO INTERNET SURVEILLANCE
Michael Ullman (mju8@pitt.edu)
SCENARIO INVOLVING AN ETHICAL
ISSUE
Because of my successful mechanical and computer
engineer, I was invited to join Google’s Project Loon team
in the spring of 2016. Google began working on Project
Loon in 2012, and by the time I arrived on the team, Google
was already implementing Loon systems around the world
[1]. Successful tests had already occurred in New Zealand,
northern Brazil, and California’s Central Valley, and project
leader Michael Cassidy had stated that he intended to
expand, “as more countries OK it,” [1].
Because of the benefits that Internet access offers—from
providing farmers necessary weather data to offering greater
learning opportunities inside and outside of classrooms—
public interest in Project Loon has grown exponentially.
Corporate interest in Project Loon has grown as well due to
the economic opportunities it offers. Google allows
telecommunication companies to rent or lease access to its
balloons, enabling companies to provide service to
customers previously unreachable. In turn, Google gains
more exposure for its online ads [2]. Since my arrival on the
team, Google has partnered with telecommunications
companies in Argentina, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, India, and
Saudi Arabia to provide Internet and LTE service access to
areas that previously lacked the necessary infrastructure.
In a brief time since my arrival, I have climbed up the
corporate ladder to an important managerial position. As of
summer 2018, I serve as one of the members on Project
Loon’s executive board. While Mr. Cassidy ultimately
makes the final decisions on matters such as implementing
new technologies, expanding manufacturing processes, and
partnering with telecommunication companies, the members
of the executive board weigh in their opinions on the matters
at hand. Mr. Cassidy nearly always consults the board before
making decisions concerning Project Loon because he
knows that we are all highly knowledgeable about the topics
pertaining to this technology.
This typical information disclosure, however, was
seemingly bypassed one day when I noticed Mr. Cassidy in a
conference room talking with men I had never seen before.
The first time I walked by the conference room, the window
blinds were open; the next time I walked by, they were
closed. I considered this even more peculiar. Rather than
awkwardly stand against the window, I pretended to fiddle
with the copy machine just outside the conference room so
that I could eavesdrop on what was going on inside.
It was immediately clear that the men were trying to
persuade Mr. Cassidy to agree to some sort of deal. Through
context clues, I ascertained that the men were agents from
the National Security Agency (NSA). Apparently, the NSA
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2015-11-03
was lobbying to allow the agency to conduct both domestic
and international Internet surveillance. Considering that
cellular networks using Project Loon technology send
signals to the balloons, the NSA agents claimed that Google
could program its balloons to redirect the data signals,
allowing the NSA to monitor transmissions. With tensions
rising between the United States and numerous other
nations, such as Russia, North Korea, and Iran, the NSA
agents claimed that the agency had justification for increased
surveillance measures. While also monitoring the signals of
balloons currently in place, the agents said that they wanted
Google to make deals with these enemy nations, so that
Loon balloons could be placed in the areas of interest. Mr.
Cassidy argued that the United States Patriot Act, a piece of
legislation that previously made it legal for the NSA to
conduct widespread collection of Internet data, had been
severely altered earlier that year, requiring concrete evidence
of an imminent threat in order to conduct such Internet
surveillance. The agents scoffed at his rebuttal, asking Mr.
Cassidy if he would rather help the NSA or get caught up in
technicalities and be responsible for putting millions of
people in jeopardy.
I could tell the agents were not going to be denied—they
were going to get the resources they needed in whatever
means possible. I was unable to determine if these agents
had simply gone rogue, and thus had no regard for the
current law, or if some authority figure had allowed them to
pursue the course of action in spite of the law. Regardless, it
was clear that the agents had put Mr. Cassidy in quite a legal
and ethical predicament.
I heard Mr. Cassidy ask the men if any of them had ever
read 1984. After a pause, one of the agents said that if Mr.
Cassidy refused to cooperate, the NSA could have Project
Loon shut down. The door to the conference room opened,
and the agents came out. I pretended to finish fiddling with
the copying machine. As the men made their way out of the
building, I made my way back to my office to contemplate
everything I had just heard.
COMPILING BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
In the days that followed, I took the initiative to research
how the NSA could conduct mass Internet surveillance. It
had not occurred to me that Google could indeed collect
signals that were sent via the Project Loon balloons. Upon
consideration, I realized that Google would technically have
access to these signals because they are transmitted using the
hardware on the balloons—all it would take would be some
simple programming of the hardware and redirecting of the
Michael Ullman
signals. Now that I knew that Project Loon would be capable
of the task, I turned my focus to the NSA.
investigated—a number that hardly justifies many
politicians’ arguments that the NSA surveillance programs
are vital to national security. It was also noted in the New
America study that the majority of the cases it sampled were
solved using traditional investigative methods, such as using
informants and tips from local communities, as well as
targeted intelligence operations [4].
How the NSA Collects Data and Issues with Its Methods
From my research, I was able to determine that the NSA
collects Internet data by means of a mass-collection system
[3]. This system operates on the premise that some
individuals out of a set group may be of interest, and in order
to determine the identities of those individuals, information
is collected concerning everyone in the group [3]. Computer
systems are programmed to identify certain keywords,
purchases, phone numbers, or other information that may
indicate suspicious activity [3]. This approach is effective
because it allows the NSA to perform surveillance on the
largest possible population; however, it is detrimental
because the information can be severely misinterpreted.
For example, if NSA computers gathered that a person
had purchased items used to make homemade bombs, while
also gathering that the person had recently watched a Netflix
documentary about famous bombings, that person would
automatically be placed on a “watch list” in the computer
system. Regardless of the fact that this was purely
coincidental occurrence, that person could now be subjected
to an investigation from federal, state, or local officials.
Because of situations like these, false positives occur
much more often than true positives, making the system
extremely inefficient. This issue could possibly be resolved
if people, not computers, were reviewing the information at
hand. Due to the vast amount of gathered information, this is
an implausible solution.
ETHICAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE
NSA’S PROGRAMS
One of the issues that immediately concerned me was
that the NSA’s endeavors involved a severe invasion of
privacy. In 2013 Edward Snowden’s exposure of the fact
that the NSA was conducting mass surveillance on United
States citizens—even the ones who had done nothing
criminal—caused much public uproar. In order to
understand this reaction from a scientific and legal
perspective, I researched how mass surveillance is perceived
by those respective communities.
The Psychological Effects of Mass Surveillance
Elias Aboujaoude, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford
University, states that the opposition citizens hold toward
mass surveillance is related to, “our psychological autonomy
and the maintenance of some semblance of control over the
various little details that make us us,” [5]. In a world where
this surveillance is not present, individuals have control over
the information that they disclose about themselves;
however, in a world consumed by mass surveillance,
individuals lose this ability. Aboujaoude argues that a sense
of privacy and control of personal information play a crucial
role in maintaining a healthy psyche, as they help to
maintain the concept of a self [5]. In other words, taking
away privacy takes away one of the crucial aspects of being
an individual.
Another disturbing aspect of mass surveillance is that the
computer systems used to complete the surveillance do not
forget information. In terms of simple human interaction, the
fact that people forget information allows people to move on
from past mistakes and embarrassments. Viktor MayerSchönberger of the Oxford Internet Institute states that the
perfect memory of computer systems can cause us to, “lose a
fundamental human capacity: to live and act firmly in the
present,” [5]. Constant concern about all current activities,
while also being aware of past activities, can be
demoralizing and paranoia-inducing. These things can have
a detrimental impact on human behavior.
The Effectiveness of the NSA’s Endeavors
It was clear through my analysis of the NSA’s methods
that the system makes erroneous assumptions My next order
of business was to determine whether or not the program
even accomplished its goal of catching criminals. In order to
do this, I examined an in-depth analysis performed by the
New America Foundation. This analysis examined the cases
of 225 individuals recruited by terrorist group al-Qaeda or a
like-minded group, or found to be inspired by al-Qaeda’s
ideology, who had been charged in the United States with an
act of terrorism since September 11, 2001 [4]. Out of these,
it was found that the NSA’s collection of telephone data—
specifically the times, durations, and phone numbers
associated with certain calls—appeared to play a role in
initiating at most 1.8 percent of the cases [4]. This method
was justified by Section 215 of the Patriot Act [4]. NSA
programs involving surveillance of non-U.S. citizens, made
legal by the FISA Amendments Act, played a role in 4.4
percent of the cases, while NSA surveillance under an
unidentified authority played a role in 1.3 percent of the
cases [4]. If there was no overlap between these cases, the
NSA’s surveillance only played a role in the investigation of
7.5 percent of the cases that the New America Foundation
Legal Perspectives on Mass Surveillance
Demoralization and psychological damage did not sound
like ethical byproducts to me, so I decided to investigate the
legal ideals concerning mass surveillance.
2
Michael Ullman
One of the fundamental ideals of the United States
judicial system is the concept of probable cause—that
authorities must have a legitimate reason to investigate
someone. It was immediately apparent to me that mass
surveillance was not justified by the idea of probable cause,
simply because an entire population is not going to be
worthy of criminal investigation. I personally believe that it
is acceptable to perform surveillance if people given prior
notification. For example, I see no issue with surveillance
cameras being used in public places if signs, or some other
means of communication, are used to proclaim that fact.
Covert mass surveillance, however, violates this idea while
also violating the concept of probable cause. Rather than
investigating after the grounds of suspicion have been
established, NSA surveillance operates by investigating
everyone and having grounds of suspicion arise from it [3].
An additional consideration was that the Patriot Act was
altered just months before the situation at Google arose,
specifying that concrete evidence was required to justify an
investigation.
Not only does the United States law pose obstacles for
mass surveillance, but its foreign policy delineates how to
handle cases of privacy. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, set forth by the United Nations, states in its
twelfth article that, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home, or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation,” [6]. Mass surveillance of this majority would
indeed be considered arbitrary and thus violate the United
Nations’ ultimate code of conduct.
ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers and
the codes of ethics of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers in order to find guidance on how to deal with the
situation.
There were three different fundamental canons of the
National Society of Professional Engineers that I believed
could be called into question. The first canon states that
engineers shall, “Hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public,” [7]. There were two different
perspectives to be taken from this canon. On one hand,
allowing mass surveillance has been shown to have negative
psychological effects on those subjected to it, but on the
other hand, not allowing mass surveillance could enable
attacks that could put the safety of many people at risk. The
fifth canon states that engineers should, “avoid deceptive
acts,” [7]. This canon could potentially be violated by the
prospective mass surveillance because it would be done in a
covert manner, which would be considered deceptive and
opaque. Finally, the sixth fundamental canon of the National
Society of Professional Engineers states that engineers must,
“Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession,” [7]. This canon raises many
issues. First, is using the power of the NSA to perform mass
surveillance an honorable, responsible, or ethical use of this
power? If it accomplishes its goal of stopping terrorist
attacks, then the answer is probably yes. Considering the
changes in to the Patriot Act, it is most certainly illegal to
perform mass surveillance on entire populations, but would
people consider it acceptable to break a law if doing so helps
to keep people safe? Finally, a public revelation that Project
Loon’s balloons were used to perform illegal surveillance
could be detrimental to the project’s honor, reputation, and
future because such actions would be counter to the public’s
opinions and would be breaking the law.
The code of ethics for the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers also contained three fundamental
canons that I believed were relevant to the situation. The
first canon states that, “Engineers shall hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance
of their professional duties,” [8]. Seeing as how this canon is
exactly the same as the first canon of the National Society of
Professional Engineers, the same concerns hold true for this
canon. The seventh canon of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers states that, “Engineers shall issue
public statements only in an objective and truthful manner
and shall avoid any conduct which brings discredit upon the
profession,” [8]. The second part of this canon is the one that
could be called into question. Considering that the
prospective endeavors of Project Loon could be deemed
both unethical and unlawful, the exposure of these endeavors
could indeed bring discredit to the project and, in turn, to the
field of engineering. The tenth and last canon, which states
that, “Engineers who are members of the Society shall
endeavor to abide by the Constitution, By-Laws, and
Policies of the Society, and they shall disclose knowledge of
The Common Justification of Mass Surveillance
The reason why mass surveillance has been used is due
to fear of terrorist attacks. Since the attacks in the United
States on September 11, 2001, Americans have had a
heightened sensitivity to the idea of national security. In fact,
the United States Department of Homeland Security was
founded after the attacks in 2001. Politicians and many
American citizens cite their fears of future attacks as
justification for mass surveillance. Despite the minimal role
that this surveillance plays in initiating many terrorist
investigations, people claim that the program is imperative
because of the perception that it could prevent a future
attack. While the facts and figures may say that mass
surveillance is not necessary, and surveillance concentrated
on certain individuals would be a more ethical and
reasonable approach, the guilt of indirectly enabling a future
terrorist attack weighs heavily on the minds of Americans.
APPLYING ENGINEERING CODES OF
ETHICS
Considering that my role at Project Loon is one of a
mechanical and computer engineer, I examined the codes of
3
Michael Ullman
any matter involving another member’s alleged violation of
this Code of Ethics or the Society’s Conflicts of Interest
Policy in a prompt, complete, and truthful manner to the
chair of the Ethics Committee,” could be violated in this
scenario, depending upon how I choose to act [8]. While
neither Mr. Cassidy nor I are members of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, the idea behind this canon
still applies: I am aware of a potentially unethical and
unlawful plan, and I should be responsible and report the
NSA agents to the proper authorities.
Lessons Learned Through the Process
Prior to this situation, I may have been inclined to think
that an action was either clearly ethical or unethical. This
experience taught me instead that the answer to the ethical
nature of something can be much more ambiguous. In my
situation, I knew that there could be ethical issues called into
question, which was enough to take a stand against the
planned action. This is something about which I believe all
engineers should be familiar and concerned. If there are any
unethical aspects to a planned course of action, then that
course of action should be called into question. As
engineers, we are held to the highest possible ethical
standards and trusted by people that we are adhering to those
standards. An action deemed unethical should not be
considered acceptable practice by any engineer. Ultimately,
situations concerning ethical dilemmas should illustrate an
engineer’s most important ability—to find the best possible
solution to a given problem.
DECIDING ON A COURSE OF ACTION
The information I compiled revealed that this was in fact
a serious ethical dilemma, as both allowing and preventing
the use of Project Loon balloons in conducting mass
surveillance have their respective merits and drawbacks.
Allowing such an undertaking could cause psychological
detriments to the people, while also breaking the laws of the
United States and of the United Nations. Preventing the use
of mass surveillance, despite its unremarkable track record
in catching terrorists, could potentially capacitate terrorist
attacks and put the lives of many people, perhaps even my
friends and family, at risk.
In a final attempt to determine whether or not to report
this suspicious activity to the proper authorities, I turned to
the two codes of engineering ethics for further examination.
The majority of the canons that I considered could be
interpreted in different ways, which meant that I could not
directly use them to determine whether or not the
prospective course of action was right or wrong. I was,
however, able to use one of the canons of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers to determine what I should
do. This canon was the tenth one, which states, “Engineers
who are members of the Society shall endeavor to abide by
the Constitution, By-Laws, and Policies of the Society, and
they shall disclose knowledge of any matter involving
another member’s alleged violation of this Code of Ethics or
the Society’s Conflicts of Interest Policy in a prompt,
complete, and truthful manner to the chair of the Ethics
Committee,” [8]. To me, this canon meant that I should
report the NSA agents, regardless of how I personally felt
about the current situation. It was clear that Project Loon’s
compliance with the NSA could be in violation of the codes
of ethics of both the National Society of Professional
Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. Because of this, I decided to take action. I went
to Mr. Cassidy and presented my research and opinions. He
said that he appreciated my work and concern and agreed
that we should report the NSA agents. Thus, we called the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and reported the illegal
activity that the agents were trying to perpetuate. Afterward,
Mr. Cassidy commended me for my work and said that he
wished more people in the field of engineering were also
concentrated on “doing the right thing”.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Levy. (2013, August 13). “The Untold Story of
Google’s Quest to Bring the Internet Everywhere—By
Balloon.”
Wired.
(Online
article).
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/googlex-project-loon/.
[2] T. Simonite. (2015). “Project Loon: Billions of people
could get online for the first time thanks to helium balloons
that Google will soon send over many places cell towers
don't reach.” MIT Technology Review. (Online article).
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534986/pro
ject-loon/.
[3] J. Donahue, N. Whittemore, A. Heerman. “Ethical Issues
of
Data
Surveillance.”
(Online
article).
http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH20.pdf
[4] B. Cahall, D. Sterman, E. Schneider, P. Bergen. (2014,
January 13). “Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop
Terrorists?” New America Foundation. (Online article).
https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsasbulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/
[5] J. Golbeck. (2014, September). “All Eyes on You.”
Psychology
Today.
(Online
article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=0
29c6fb3-9f92-462e-bdacaa1c0af8bc9d%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4107&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=97519837
[6] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United
Nations.
(Online
article).
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12
[7] (2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers”. National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[8] (2006, November 5). “Society Policy Ethics.” American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. (Online article).
https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9EB36017-FA98-477E8A73-77B04B36D410/P157_Ethics.aspx
4
Michael Ullman
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
(2012). “Bad Footage: Surveillance Laws, Police
Misconduct, and the Internet.” Georgetown Law Journal.
(Online
article).
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/glj100
&div=43&g_sent=1&collection=journals pp. 1400-1434
D. Lyon. (2001, September). “Facing the future: Seeking
ethics for everyday surveillance.” Ethics and Information
Technology.
(Online
article).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012227629496
“Ethics Cases: Case 1031.” Texas Tech University. (Online
article).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
M. Friedman. “Privacy, Surveillance, and Care Ethics.”
(Online
article).
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/papers/docs/friedman.pdf
“Obligation to Client or Employer?” Online Ethics Center
for Engineering and Science. (Online article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Obligation.asp
x
(2001, January 3). “Patriot Act.” U.S. Government Printing
Office.
(Online
Article).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf p. 16
“Sometimes Silence is Golden.” webGURU. (Online article).
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/sometimes-silence-golden
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the Bevier Librarians for their
compilation of resources, which I used in my researching for
this paper. I would also like to thank Mrs. Christina Ullman
for her suggestions concerning what to include in this paper.
5