In 2006, the efficacy of the computer as a universal tool is more or less accepted globally. Irrespective of whether one is situated in a developed country or in one of the countries in transition towards development, the common realization is that there is very little domain of human activity left, professional, private or social, which the presence of the computers, or their potential use, has left unaffected. The degree of “permeation” or ubiquity of the computers may vary among the countries, but as Moor (1985, 2001) had foreseen, it has raised many important social and moral issues which in this era of globalization, are common across the globe. However, there are some issues that the present author believes are uniquely embedded in the societal structures of some of the developing nations and are particularly pertinent for the populous nations such as India. This paper strives to bring into focus some of those situations, and wishes to comment upon the need to reinterpret some of the basic assumptions of computer ethics in the light of them. The abstract discusses only the following situation as an example. The full paper will cover more.

Case one. Literature shows that in a societal context the equal access to information, and also to computer technology, is generally considered as a worthy topic for computer ethics. It is often argued as an issue from the perspective of equity and equal opportunity: whether and how justly the benefits of advancements in computer technology are distributed throughout a given society. Some even go further to apply John Rawls’ Difference Principle to argue that in certain cases it is a moral imperative to allow equal access to computer and information technology to the disadvantaged ( for example Grodzinsky   2000). In general, the assumption in these discussions seems to be as follows: In any given society s, it should be a societal priority to ensure that the access to the advantages that computer technology has to offer is given equally, or at least equitably to all members of s.  

However, circumstantial details sometimes raise questions about the soundness of these arguments and assumptions. Consider for example the case of Railways reservation through the internet in India, a democracy of billion-plus population.   Indian Railways, run by the Government of India, is the largest railways network in Asia and is one of the largest and busiest train networks in the world. A conservative estimate shows that this network transports over six billion passengers and over 750 million tones of freight annually. It covers the length and the breadth of the vast region that is known as India. Unlike many other countries such as the US, in India trains traditionally have been and still are the preferred modes of transport by the masses in comparison to other modes, such as cars and airplanes. Apart from the facts that motorable roads to every part of India is still a dream and that airports are purely urban phenomena, the decisive factor in the case of trains perhaps is that they are by far the most economical mode of transport for traveling between stations. During the elections, one of the commonest populist strategies that the Railways Ministry routinely uses is to promise to keep the train fares for the general compartments as low as possible.

Lately, information technology has enabled Indian Railways to introduce the on-line system for various services, such as advance booking and purchasing train tickets through its website ( http://www.indianrail.gov.in).   Obviously, the aim is to expedite the railways services with the new technology and also to increase the access to information that a potential or actual passenger may require from the Railways. Among the computer users of India, the website is quite popular particularly for making advance bookings for train tickets without physically standing in a long queue. In India, the combination of popular demand for train tickets with the humongous number of population of India usually spells a perpetual demand-supply problem. On certain popular routes, even with additional increase in the number of trains, the number of seats available is forever less than the number of people asking for them. The situation becomes more acute with the holiday rush during the peak seasons.  

According to the rules set by the Railways, the advance booking for tickets on most trains (with the exception of local and short distance trains) open 60 days before the preferred date of journey. The closer the date of the actual journey is, the lesser is the chance of getting a ticket. There are costlier options for emergency situations, such as purchasing with an extra fee from the Tatkal quota which opens just 5 days before the date of journey.   However, the emergency quota tickets are not too many in number. So, if the date of journey is known and is expected, the safer and the more reasonable choice is to try to book the ticket 60 days in advance. With the clause of equal access and equal opportunity in place, anyone from any corner of India who has access to a web-enabled computer can try book a ticket in advance when the window of 60 days open at midnight.

This usually creates at least two kinds of problems that cause our moral antenna to tingle. First, the problem of loss of access that users suffer from because of equal right of all possible users to equal access. This may show up in more than one way.   Due to simultaneous attempts to access the website by unbelievably many at the stroke of twelve midnight, the bandwidth from a given point is shared by a huge number of users. So, the access to the website at that time and during the night becomes a problem. Also, circumstances, such as the service quality of the ISP and the type of the link and bandwidth provided, do not allow computer users from all over India to avail the same speed of connectivity when using the web.   Often in the areas which are not part of any major metropolis connectivity is not as fast. Even from areas with ‘decent’ internet bandwidth size (say 24 mbps), the speed of connectivity gets adversely affected as the number of simultaneous users increases. For those who happen to have slower connectivity, a 10 second delay may lead to non-availability of the desired ticket. Second, the problem of the possibility of right to access engendering social inequity. In this particular case of railways reservation, the right of on-line access in a way benefits the already socio-economically advantaged and creates further obstacle for the socially disadvantaged. For, those who have or can afford the access to the computer (either as a personal possession or through some cybercafe) get a solid eight hours lead over those, who do not or can not have access to a web-enabled computer or a cybercafe that remains open throughout the night. The manned railway ticket counters, which also use the computer technology for the booking, open only around eight in the morning. Thus, the digital divide, though itself a product of the social disparities, in this case reinforces social inequity. .

None of the easy solutions, such as giving every adult Indian citizen access to some web-enabled computer or to give some priority to the informationally disadvantaged (without access or with slower connectivity), seems morally applicable in this case.   The pragmatic solution that many seek is to pay extra to the travel or ticket booking agencies for booking tickets, and thus bear an unjust burden themselves. The irony, however, is that even the agencies vie with each other for access, and quite often the city-based agencies win over the ones from semi-rural areas, because of their better manpower and connectivity.

Situations such as this make us realize that the challenge for computer ethics for prescribing usage policy is far from over. Even if we cannot decide whether it raises issues that are unique for computer ethics, I believe that it poses an interesting philosophical question: as far as computer usage is concerned, what is equal access and what is equity? Whatever is the answer, the challenge is to make sense of it in the context of a overpopulated country with wide and persistent disparities among its social groups. (1376 words)   

Moor, J. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy , 16(4), 266-75.

Moor, J. (2001). The future of computer ethics: You ain’t seen nothing yet! Ethics and Information Technology, 3 (2), 87-154.

Grodzinsky, F.S. (2000). Equity of Access: Adaptive Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics,6 (2).

http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/resources/research/adap_tech/grodzinsky/conclusion.html#acknowl (44 words)