Core Values and Value Conflicts in Cybersecurity

The concept of 'value' has a generally accepted definition in philosophy and social sciences.

Value conflicts arise when values contradict each other at an abstract level.

Values are often seen as objective in the social sciences.

In the philosophical understanding of values, values are associated with what is evil.

Identifying value conflicts requires considering the general principles of values.

Value clusters include security, fairness, accountability, and freedom.

Values help to evaluate certain state-of-affairs in terms of badness.

In cybersecurity, value conflicts can be addressed through technical solutions only.

The Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences is a department.

The chapter discusses five value clusters in relation to cybersecurity.

The value cluster of health is considered a primary value cluster in cybersecurity.

The relationship between privacy and security is always conflicting.

The chapter suggests that giving up privacy is necessary to prevent illegal access to ICT systems.

The chapter discusses three value clusters in relation to cybersecurity.

Domain-specific values are considered when deciding on cybersecurity measures.

The chapter concludes that values in cybersecurity should be considered in isolation.

Privacy and security are always in conflict.

The privacy versus security framing is a comprehensive account of moral issues in cybersecurity.

The aim of the chapter is to solely develop a comprehensive account of cybersecurity measures.

Values are understood as evaluative dimensions that can be used to evaluate the badness of certain state-of-affairs.

Value clusters are a response to different types of moral concerns.

The chapter only considers values that should be considered when cybersecurity is compromised.

The conflict between privacy and security can sometimes be designed out.

The chapter aims to ignore value conflicts in cybersecurity.

Computer systems are evaluated in terms of the values of efficiency and cybersecurity.

Values belong to the evaluative domain of the normative.

The evaluative is concerned with rightness of actions.

Values are directly action guiding.

If cybersecurity is a value, we might have reason to decrease it through technical measures.

Statement V is intended to be neutral with respect to the question of whether values ground reasons or reasons ground values.

The above account of values assumes consequentialist ethics.

The deontic is concerned with goodness of state-of-affairs.

Deontologists believe that values determine the rightness of actions.

Consequentialists believe that the only way to respond positively to a value is to increase or maximise it.

The positive response to a value is always the same in every context.

Respecting a value is a negative response.

Values can be admired.

The rightness of actions determines the goodness of outcomes.

Judgment and deliberation are never required to determine the positive response to a value.

Increasing privacy is always the best response to the value of privacy.