Code, with its regulatory aspect, may be used by the State, but this is by no means the only agent to adopt such techniques: companies are great adepts of code as well.
Examples come by the dozen, from Internet filtering (on which I am writing my dissertation – I’ll post a link once I’ve handed it in), a cyberspace-related form of code, to the barriers in the London Underground and the Parisian Metro (the Brussels public transport seems to be headed in that direction too).
Regarding Internet filtering, for instance, many of the entities filtering Internet content are private companies, be they Internet service providers (ISPs) aiming to fight child pornography or businesses attempting to reduce productivity losses. As for public transport, it is generally run by public-private partnerships, associating the idea of universal service and minimum State oversight with economic viability.
How does this adoption of code affect us?
In the absence of code, such systems operate on the basis of trust and of the threat of sanction, should infringement be established.
This is easily observed in the case of Internet filtering by businesses wishing to tackle changes in productivity.
A recent US survey showed that 54% of 1400 companies with 100 or more employees wholly prohibited the use of social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter [1]. While this survey does not enable us to assess whether this amounts to filtering or ‘acceptable use policies’ (similar to codes of conduct), a prior study seems to indicate that there may be a fair proportion of both [2].
If a business has deployed a filter over its network, employees will find it impossible [3] to access the relevant website; without such a filter, employees are faced with the following threat: ‘if you are caught X amount of times logging onto website A, you will be fired’. Employees are therefore given some degree of choice, because it is always possible to break the rule without being caught (perfect enforcement is currently nonexistent). This creates a reliance on trust, or an encouragement thereof, depending on your point of view.
One of the tips presented by Robert Half Technology at the end of their survey illustrates the question of trust, the effect that acceptable use policies have on employees:
‘Monitor yourself. Even if your employer has a liberal policy about social networking, limit the time you spend checking your Facebook page or reading other people’s tweets to avoid a productivity drain.’ [4]
Self-discipline, i.e. ‘the ability to pursue what one thinks is right despite temptations to abandon it’, is at the core of such policies, and understandably so: employers would rather employ people who are capable of self-discipline than those who give in to their most minute desires. The latter might decide on a whim to look for another job, to be less courteous with their co-workers, …
By encouraging self-discipline, employers can guarantee that they are creating a viable work atmosphere. Enforcement of acceptable use policies and codes of conduct is necessary to some degree to help maintain a certain quality of the work atmosphere, but they need not be applied rigidly.
This begs the following question: in the presence of code, does self-discipline retain the same importance? It is my opinion that code used by businesses may lead to diminish the amount of self-discipline that employers require of their employees, precisely because there are less ways in which employers encourage self-discipline. To be perfectly honest, I don’t see how that could be a good thing.
Your thoughts?
Footnotes
1. Robert Half Technology, ‘Whistle – but don’t tweet – while you work’ (6 October 2009), http://rht.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=131&item=790, accessed 7 July 2010;
S Gaudin, ‘Business use of Twitter, Facebook exploding’, on Computerworld (9 November 2009), http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140579/Business_use_of_Twitter_Facebook_exploding, accessed 7 July 2010.↑
2. D Forte, ‘Web Filtering: Where, How and Why – Control of Internet use: some considerations about the implications of this type of control in the light of the Italian experience’ [2001](8) Network Security 9.↑
3. Relatively speaking: there are code-based means of circumventing filters.
See C Callanan & others, ‘Internet Blocking: Balancing Cybercrime Responses in Democratic Societies’ (October 2009), http://www.aconite.com/sites/default/files/Internet_blocking_and_Democracy.pdf, accessed 22 July 2010.↑
4. Robert Half Technology (n 1).↑