A bit over a year ago, there was a fascinating event held at the Brookings Institution—the Washington, D.C., “think tank”—to discuss a problem we, as a society, are facing. It is not just a U.S. problem nor is it specifically a public sector problem. Furthermore, it is not truly just an information technology (IT) problem, even though those of us in that community have been thrust right in the middle of it, especially business intelligence, since it is primarily the use of the tools under our purview that seem to generate the dilemma. And like most dilemmas, this one is difficult and has no easy solution.

What exactly is the nature of the dilemma? That as we attempt to secure our people and our nation in the hostile post-Sept. 11 world, there are actions that we can take to defend ourselves that may have other consequences, which society in general finds undesirable.

Undesirable consequences … Raymond Bauer, the notable Harvard sociologist of technology, several decades ago reminded us that the principal factor for man to triumph over technology was to be able to take the unexpected and undesirable consequences of technology and make them expected and desirable.

So Brookings, the Computer Ethics Institute and Ascential Software held an event titled “The Challenge of Information Sharing: Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties” to initiate a discussion regarding how the government should use IT to secure the homeland. The discussion centered around three questions:

1. How can IT assist in maintaining a secure homeland?
2. What issues—legal, cultural and ethical—may arise from the implementation of these IT solutions?
3. What operational framework should policy makers use to assist them in maximizing the benefits while minimizing the harm of implementing these IT solutions in the post-Sept. 11 environment?

Many of the root issues take me back to the establishment of the Computer Ethics Institute (CEI) almost 20 years ago, also in Washington, D.C. It was something I was intimately involved with, and Brookings was a partner and support platform from the beginning. It was also at Brookings where the Institute’s Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics were first presented. So it was fitting that CEI be a cosponsor of this session. (More about computer ethics another day.)

As we convened for the discussion, we could see that the participants in the debate were easily divided into two groups, which we referred to as “the advocate and the preemptive positions.” The former’s principal argument is that “we are in a new world, the post-Sept. 11 world, and the government needs to do everything it can to protect the nation, even if this means temporarily suspending certain civil liberties.

We cannot be restrained by too literal an interpretation of the Constitution, because we are under attack. Unless we act now to prevent the next attack, there will be nothing left to protect.”

The advocate position, on the other hand, refers back to the fact that “this country was founded on principles that define this nation and make it great. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to equal protection under the law and other fundamental principles of our government that need to be preserved in times of crises. If the terrorists force us to erode our civil liberties, we will have lost the war on terrorism, because we will have lost what makes us great as a nation. Therefore, the primary concern in times of crises should be the preservation of civil liberties.”

The participants wanted to know what was different between the current threat on the environment and that of the recent past, the Cold War era. They did agree that in the current preemptive environment, any attempt to strike a balance between civil liberties and national security needed to answer four essential questions that are at the core of addressing the higher threat level and the truly tough challenges involved in stopping terrorism.

1. What are the new threats and what information is relevant to these threats?
2. How can we get this information in the most effective manner?
3. What institutions should take the praise or blame in gathering information regarding these threats?
4. Who should provide oversight?
5. How do we harness technology to meet these threats?

These questions should provide a framework as the group moves forward.

What came out of the discussion? First, the group suggested the possible creation of a repository of ethical cases to be run under the aegis of a department of the Executive Branch. This repository would store public concerns and actual incidents regarding the government’s use of information technologies and possible civil liberty violations, privacy concerns and identity theft issues. The model for this program has already taken root within hospitals. Hospital ethics committees have been successfully implemented to alleviate worries and concerns of patients and have helped build an environment of greater trust between doctors, administrators and patients. Based on this model, the program would consist of a politically and professionally diverse committee of ethicists, technologists and government scholars who will:

1. Review the cases in the repository;
2. Help alleviate concerns the public may have regarding the government’s use of information technologies;
3. Recommend government policies regarding the ethical use of technologies; and
4. Help foster awareness within the government of the ethical issues facing the use of information technologies to protect the nation.

By creating a repository of cases and formulating guidelines based on the public’s concerns, the group suggested that a well-informed answer to the following question can be developed and deployed: How can the government maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of implementing information technology solutions in the post-Sept. 111 era? Through collaboration among technologists, ethicists, theologians, government officials and businesspeople, the group should be able to provide a forum for discussing the advancement of technology and its effects on ethical values. The group can help build the knowledge necessary to meet the government’s objective of securing the nation without causing unnecessary harm to civil liberties.

In all, it was an excellent start to addressing one of the most difficult but crucial issues of our time and one that is directly linked to business intelligence and decision support in the public sector.

Recent articles by Dr. Ramon Barquin

• What the Healthcare Reform Effort Needs is Better Business Intelligence
• Dashboards, Dashboards Everywhere
• Knowledge Management in the Federal Government: What’s Happening?
• Business Intelligence, the Cloud and the Government