IT Ethics of Internet Service Providers and Internet

IT Ethics of Internet Service Providers and Internet Content Providers Andrew Meyenn Wesley College Melbourne, Australia © 2006 The College Board. All rights reserved. College Board, AP Central, APCD, Advanced Placement Program, AP Vertical Teams, College. Ed, Pre-AP, SAT, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Board. Admitted Class Evaluation Service, Connect to college success, My. Road, SAT Professional Development, SAT Readiness Program, Setting the Cornerstones, Spring. Board, and The Official SAT Teacher’s Guide are trademarks owned by the College Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered trademark of the College Board and National Merit Scholarship Corporation. All other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners. Permission to use copyrighted College Board materials may be requested online at: www. collegeboard. com/inquiry/cbpermit. html.

IT Ethics • Internet technologies present ethical challenges. – Internet content providers • Copyright responsibility • Do no harm – Internet service providers • Reasonable level of responsibility • Copyright responsibility • Responsibility for misuse by clients -- for example, minimize potential harm

Copyright • • Protection of form, not ideas Balance between fair return and dissemination of information Creator's rights to perform, reproduce, sell, and derive No requirement to register Challenges in law enforcement due to internationalism of the Internet Concept of "fair use" Concept of undue impact on original author's commercial return Ethics of trust

Ethical Principle: Do No Harm • • • Human actions have consequences. Consequences have impacts, which are difficult to determine. Harm is in the eye of the harmed. – No defense in saying, "I did not think my actions were causing harm" – Chat rooms and Web site postings can do harm • Can damage individual's self-esteem • Can hurt individual's reputation • Can have other disastrous outcomes • Individuals have a responsibility to "do no harm. " – Knowingly – Unknowingly

Ethics for ISPs • • • Simply claiming no responsibility is not a legitimate excuse. Copyright is a shared issue and a shared responsibility. Providing the infrastructure to do harm brings with it a high level of responsibility.

Scenario Analysis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Establish who is involved -- who the actors are. Describe the ethical problem from the viewpoint of each of these people. Contrast these views. Construct an open situation where each party is aware of the other. Outline the major ethical problem and suggest a way to resolve the current problem and to ensure it is unlikely to occur again Key thinking point: Virtual space is often anonymous, and often it is useful to consider an analogous real-world situation. Reference www. meyenn. net. au/itethics/Ethics. Meyenn. pdf

Scenario Analysis 1: Ethics and Content Providers You and two friends get together and decide to set up a Web site. The purpose of the Web site is to share ideas about your common interests, which include music. You and your two friends think the Web site will be interesting to the public. Your parents agree and are happy to pay the Webhosting fee. You are aware of the Napster™ music file-sharing case but think that no one will be concerned if your Web site allows some sharing of music. Accordingly, you set up some files that can be downloaded free of charge; they are copies of commercially available songs. It is not long before other like-minded students begin to send you copies of songs they have made. Users of your site quickly begin to swap music. Students simply register a login name and then have access to your site. You and your friends are not concerned because nobody is selling the music.

Scenario Analysis 2: Ethics and ISPs A group of students at a school denigrate a classmate in a sequence of chat sessions that last over a period of one month. The ISP and the school code of practice forbid the use of a chat session of this nature. The classmate is identified by name, but the other students do not directly name themselves. The denigrated student is not involved in the chat session. However, during the first week of the month the student becomes aware because she or he hears people talking. The student reacts by becoming withdrawn and begins missing school. The student refuses to talk about the issue with the parents, but the parents become concerned and contact the school. An investigation unearths the role of the chat room. The parents then want to know why the school's ISP did not detect the misuse of the chat room. The ISP claims it is the school's responsibility, not the ISP's, and wants to know why the school did not monitor the chat rooms.