Why are ethical values, laws, and regulations important in governing the Internet?

internet-concept_600x400

Most people cry for freedom, but complain they are unsafe; this paradox plagues many facets of our modern existence, particularly with the internet. In order to govern the internet, we have to understand more about the global community that uses it than ever before.

There are many aspects that add to the complication of governing peoples conduct on the internet, including laws, ethics, and other regulations. Laws are important on the internet, but they are difficult to enforce, as there are often issues with jurisdiction. This does not however mean that we should leave the internet to anarchy. I do feel that certain regulations should be developed, but to do so will require compromise from all nations, as many cultures have different beliefs, laws, and ethical values and in my opinion we should respect these groups no matter how small.

Many people would instinctually look at this matter with a purely utilitarian view, but in my opinion starting on that footing we are bound to hurt many people. So essentially on a global scale it is near impossible to develop universal laws for the internet, I feel that we should continue with the way we presently govern the internet, with organizations such as ICANN that are not biased in their actions, but are rather directly responsible to the internet community they serve. As most law making bodies often lean towards supporting the wealthy, a process I feel is against the spirit of the internet, which in my belief is to support the free flow of information. I hope that the governing of the internet will continue to changes, while maintaining a understanding of the possible repercussions of all areas of life, and existence. The internet is an amazing gift and will stay that way as long as we don’t try and wrap it up in red tape.

What is the “life cycle” of cyber and computer ethics issues?

Cat5Earth_600x400

The “life cycle” of cyber and computer ethics as explained by Don Gotterbarn, is a matter that all persons that deal with computers should be aware of. Based on my own experience I feel his statements are correct, and that there is limitless potential damage to be caused by computers if we are not careful. This life cycle is basically an evolution a person goes through from a innocent intriguing stage, to an illusion and abuse of power, to a later stage that hopefully all people grow to in which there is a thorough understanding of the ethics and values involved with technology and as a result the person respects the use of technology, and does not abuse it.

There is also the life cycle of technology in general which begins with “The Age of Innocence” where computers where only used by a limited amount of people, and there was not much potential for harmful actions, although there were unethical practices at that time; including IBM creating computers for the processing of Jews in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Later this evolved to the “Age of Power and Control” which we are currently in right now, and hopefully there will eventually be an evolution to a higher level, but I am not so hopeful for that.

Essentially we should be aware of this process, and make sure we do not get too lost in the “power and control” stage, but rather pass through it swiftly. There have been many technological advancements that have had more of a negative impact than positive, simply because the person developing the technology did not evaluate the ethical aspects of the technology. I feel there is more of a need for ethics in Computer Science, and Information Technology, particularly with the advancements in biometric technology, and computer controlled weapons, as well as many others that many may not think of like data mining in social media networks. Technology can and will take over our world if we are not careful, so it is very important to use it responsibly.

What is biometric technology, and what kinds of ethical issues do certain uses of that technology raise?

shiny-world-map_600x400

Biometric technology is a major emerging industry, which is supported by many financial giants, including banks, IT firms, and the government. This technology was originally developed to verify the identity of persons by a requested body part, whether it be a person’s eye, finger, facial recognition, and many other means, such as voice recognition. In order for this system to work, a computer must store a template of the specific person’s eye, or other part, and when called upon the computer will attempt to match it with the template on file.

For most people at first glance this seems to be a great advancement in technology, and it will most likely just add to the security of the country. Although that may be the case, like Irma Van der Ploeg, I have many concerns about the emergence of this new technology, particularly with the governments use. This technology may become so advanced that complete government control of people’s daily lives becomes inevitable. What started as a fingerprint instead of a time card to document the hours an employee works, may grow to a technology where the law enforcement will arrest you for thinking of committing a crime; which could have just been a fleeting thought.

This technology could have many positive traits as far as security, but the question we must ask ourselves is, how much freedom are we willing to give up for security, or better yet do we have any say in that matter? People seem to instinctually abuse the available information to them, similar to how many search engines now use the private data in your emails, to cross-channel market to people based on the information they write, or receive in their emails. My main concern is that there will come a point in time, where I am fearful of speaking my mind because there is a facial recognition camera on a satellite recording my every word, and could possibly persecute me for thinking illegally. Maybe this is farfetched, and maybe I am a conspiracy theorist, but this sure is something to be cautious of.

Amazon vs. Barnes and Noble in the case concerning business method patents.

AmazonBarnesNoble_600x400

There are many views about the case of Amazon vs. Barnes and Noble, and I personally have a pretty strong view. This case which was mainly involving Barnes and Noble creating a program with similar functionality to Amazon’s “one click” system, which allowed consumers to purchase with one click, provided they have already setup a account with Amazon. Naturally as a corporation, its main objective is to protect the investment of its shareholders; usually done by any means necessary, and unfortunately these means are not always too ethical, at least in my eyes.

Patent law is a very difficult and controversial topic, particularly in this new age of technology as the advancements have been so rapid that it is difficult to keep up. In the case of the “one click” system, I feel that it is unethical to patent this, as it is an idea, and it is not even proven that they have come up with the idea they just have the lawyers to defend it. My ideas may be a bit biased though, I do have years of experience with doing business with Amazon, and many of their practices, like most corporations are unethical. Another example of this struggle in patent law is a current struggle Amazon is having with lawmakers to patent data mining, which is a process of gathering and analyzing data. But then again it is legal to patent DNA, so it is difficult to make the distinction to what is right or wrong. Business at one time was about providing service, now it seems like a way to extract the most amount of money from the population as possible.

Is the suing of Americans by the RIAA for copyright infringement justified?

sharingiscaring_600x400

I feel that the recording industry does present a reasonable need for the RIAA, and I do feel that utilizing this organization in order in order to discourage copyright infringement by legal action is justified; provided their claims are reasonable, as many are extreme in my eyes. America’s copyright laws must be respected in America, for not doing so could cause the incurrence of a law suit. Now we must respect copyright laws, but in order to do so we must be clear on what they are.

America’s copyright laws, have many grey areas as far as digital mediums are concerned. From a legal standpoint, it may be illegal to share songs on the internet, depending on many key factors, how it will be used, whether it affects the market of the music, if the music is copyrighted, among other details. As far as if it is morally right or wrong, in my opinion I feel that we should respect the rights of the artists, but not become so strict that we are unable to share music at all.

We may share music, however in America there are some restrictions, mainly in there are of fair use. Mainly if the music is being used to profit from, that would violate the copyright law, but you may share, or play the music in basically any physical space you want. There is also the copying of a mp3 version of song you have already, which would not violate copy right law, or also listening to a song to evaluate whether or not you want to purchase the song, this would be allowed also.

Should Intellectual Property be protected on the internet?

LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap_600x400

Intellectual Property Rights have pros, as well as cons associated with them, particularly in the area of the internet. Now the internet was originally developed to encourage the spread of information, however many would argue that Intellectual Property Rights prevents that. So, I feel that Intellectual Property should be protected only if the creator or owner wishes it so. Essentially as a artist myself, I am a strong supporter of the Free Culture Movement, including Creative Commons, Open Source Software, and other things of the like. However, I do feel that if someone wishes to protect their works on the internet, they should have the right and ability to do so, with little effort.

Many countries do not support intellectual property laws as the U.S. does, and in these cases it is my feeling that any person should have the right to protect his or her works on the internet, and the U.S. should respect that right, regardless of the publishers location. But this becomes a very difficult issue, as enforcing these rights has become one of the most difficult tasks launched on the internet community. This is especially true of countries outside of America, were we have no jurisdiction, the current system will require a lot of improvement to fully address this. I do feel that people should respect each other’s natural rights, whether in the U.S. or not, but I don’t think we have much right to instill our ideals on others. This seems to be a common idea, as there was never a full resolution with this issue when many countries attempted to resolve it with a treaty in Geneva in 1996, but there is still no consensus.

Should Pornography, Hate speak, and Spam, a right to be expressed (or tolerated) on the internet?

evil-monkeys_600x400

To answer the question of whether or not Pornography, Hate Speak, or Spam should be a right, or should be tolerated on the internet, I will have to speak purely from my opinion, as I do not feel that there can be a right or wrong answer. Although I feel that the extreme cases of these different sorts of taboo should not be tolerated, or permitted I do feel it is necessary to permit all. The reason I say this is it would be too difficult to distinguish where to draw the line, as this is a purely ethical topic. If we restrict the use of Pornography, will that mean we cannot display eBooks of how to breast feed, or if we restrict the right for Hate Speak, would that mean that Anne Frank’s diary cannot be published on the internet? Spam is probably the most difficult topic; however I do feel that the restrictions on this should be limited as well, I feel it should be largely the responsibility of the search engines, and ISP’s to keep these issues under wraps, rather than making laws about them.

I feel as human beings we have a responsibility to respect other people’s rights, and belief systems, but I do not feel that any nation has the responsibility to restrict their citizen’s rights because it may offend someone. There are pros and cons of this view, but I feel that if we do attempt to restrict these rights, we will hurt more people than we would help. The internet took John Dunne’s idea of “No man is an island” far beyond what he might have comprehended. But the fact of the matter is, no matter what you cannot make everybody happy, and if this information is not displayed on the internet it will be expressed as it always has been in literature, music, and art. So it may be arrogant, and egocentric of me, but I feel that we should have little to no governing on these issues, regardless of how the rest of the globe may feel.

Is free speech a right on the internet?

zee_no_600X400

Currently “free speech” is alive, and well on the internet; actually there is currently even more of a free range of speech than currently allowed in other avenues. This is a very controversial topic as there have been many issues that risen from the creation of the internet in this area, particularly with defamation, invasion of privacy, and gossip. These items are often very troublesome, especially since anonymity is so widely used on the internet.

Although there seems to be a reign of free speech on the internet, there are also many restrictions as well. One of the many restrictions in the US fall under the passing of the Patriot Act, which consequently allows the tracking, monitoring, and detaining individuals with little or no judicial actions. There are many restrictions, but the Patriot Act seems to cross this First Amendment the most.

In my opinion free speech should be protected whether in the US or not, I feel that the internet is the perfect opportunity for individuals to express their ideas freely without restrictions no matter where they may get their connection. As Benjamin Franklin once argued, a nation that gives up freedom to gain security deserves neither.

I do not feel that Americans should be able to impart their laws or views on the rest of the world, as I do not feel that one countries policies or views are better then another. I am a firm believer in developing our own ideas, and views rather than having someone or something impose them on us.

Who should create the laws in Cyberspace? and Who should enforce the laws in Cyberspace?

policia-Acata-internet_600x400

In Cyberspace there are not many laws that hold true throughout, in all countries, or regions. As most laws are created to protect the people, and their interests in the country or region they live. There is currently no Geneva Convention for the internet, although many are hoping to create some type of universal laws that are international. So currently the laws are made by the law makers in their respective countries, this process is however a very long one so I feel it will be years until there is any semblance of universal or global laws if ever. Until then we will be responsible to create laws for the people in our own country, and have to yield to and respect other people’s laws to have any sort of community on the Net.
There are however many organizations that do attempt to bring some sort of universal order to the Internet, but by standards rather than laws. There is the W3c (World Wide Web Consortium) which creates standards for code, and programming languages, along with the IETF (Internet Engineer Task Force) which produces standards for protocols. Another major organization is the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) which develops standards for the DNS (Domain Name System). These are not laws per say, but I guess they are the closest thing to it on a Global level, as these are universal throughout the World Wide Web.

One of the most difficult tasks is how to enforce law on the internet. Some people feel that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) should be responsible to prevent Cybercrime, or that the government should put additional resources to these tasks. I know from my personal experience there are many crimes that go uncharged, due to a lack of resources. I currently hold a position in a company that does a large amount of business on the Net, and we receive many fraudulent orders. Currently there is not a very good system in place to catch the people committing the crimes, as jurisdiction is a large issue. In the last 10 years there has been a development by the US government to attempt to circumvent this with the IC3 (Internet Crime Complaint Center), although I feel their attempts are feeble. So with that I feel that the responsibility lies ultimately with the community that uses the Net to enforce the rules that govern it.

What are the Laws in Cyberspace?

cybercrime_600x400

In a recent article from .NET magazine Gary Marshall stated that there has been talk about the government attempting to make a law, that all persons wishing to access the internet will require a ID and password; this will enable the government to track all transactions, interactions, page views, etc. It is rather scary to think that eventually our lives will be totally and completely, monitored and controlled by the government. Anonymity is a major issue with Cyberlaw, but does that mean that our lives should be transparent evade this issue?

Now obviously laws are created to protect people, but law in Cyberspace is extremely difficult to impose, and even more difficult to enforce laws. Naturally we are expected to abide by the laws of our particular area, whether it is New York and US laws, or Moscow and Russia laws. Now both of these regions have different laws so jurisdiction is a big issue on the Net, as we cannot impose our laws on another country, as they cannot either. Due to the architecture of the internet it seems that the government is attempting to develop more and more laws to regulate this environment that is not intended to be regulated; the unfortunate consequence is the loss of many freedoms that we as Americans are accustomed to. Most of the “cyberlaws” put in place restrict the flow of information, particularly in the area of free speech; one of the most significant was the Child Pornography Law of 1996, as it has been argued that this violates our 1st amendment rights.

There are also many other areas that are restricted under laws in Cyberspace, these include several key issues that have become major concerns over recent years. These issues include, but are not limited to cyber squatting, phishing, spam, and piracy. As time goes on there are more laws developed to circumvent these crimes. I do feel that there will always be issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty which make these laws extremely difficult to develop and enforce.

© Copyright chris nolte