Computer Ethics Paper 2
Due: Friday, November 8, 2013
Topic option 1: Privacy while Driving
Do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" -- in the sense of police
surveillance -- while driving?
This question relates to police tracking of vehicles by attached GPS
transponders. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrant may
be necessary. In the 2012 US v
Antoine Jones case, the Supreme Court did not entirely answer this.
On the one hand, you can certainly be followed, either by one agent
following you or by many stationary devices each recording your location as
you pass. You are, after all, on a public road.
On the other hand, people have long enjoyed a de facto sense of
privacy while driving. While the police can physically follow you,
it is impractical to do so for long without a very good reason;
tracking vehicles' locations this way as part of a "fishing expedition" is
simply not cost-effective.
Before modern tracking technology, most people probably felt they did
have an expectation of privacy while driving about. The question is
essentially whether people may legitimately still feel that way even though
low-cost tracking is now available.
Although this is partly a legal question, in large measure it is a social
and ethical question: what should we all expect here? How often should we
have to revise our privacy expectations in light of changes in technology?
Should we all just assume we are being tracked whenever we are outdoors, or
are using a commercial service of any kind? Note that much the same issue
applies to mass searches of online business records. Do we have a right to
feeling that we are not being watched if there is no one around to watch us?
Or does that not matter, if the police have the appropriate technology?
In the Supreme Court case Kyllo v US, the majority opinion (written by
Scalia) contains the following:
Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a
device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private
home that would previously have been unknowable without physical
intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is
presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
But the road is not a home, and GPS (though not GPS tracking) is
in general public use.
As a parting note, here is a famous literary example about expectations in surveillance
technology:
When
Winston followed her, he found that they were in a natural clearing, a
tiny grassy knoll surrounded by tall saplings that shut it in
completely. [Julia] stopped and turned.
'Here
we are,' she said....
'We're
all right here?' he repeated stupidly.
'Yes.
Look at the trees.' They were small ashes, which at some time had been
cut down and had sprouted up again into a forest of poles, none of them
thicker than one's wrist. 'There's nothing big enough to hide a
mike in.'
George Orwell, 1984
Topic option 2: Defamation Policy
You and two friends, Alice and Bob, are starting a new website in which user
comments figure prominently. Users comment on various products and also on
the reviews and comments provided by other users. You anticipate that the
majority of users will use their real names on the site, though pseudonyms
are permitted.
Right now you've agreed to a policy allowing the deletion of profanity and
obvious insults. However, you're having more trouble agreeing to a policy
for dealing with defamatory comments that don't fit into the obvious
profanity/insult categories. Alice has argued
We don't need to do anything; section 230 of
the CDA clearly means we have no liability for what our users post, and
thus no obligation to remove libelous content. Many other sites, such as
youtube.com and aol.com, don't seem to remove such content. How would we
determine if an allegedly defamatory post is in fact true? Would we have
to post the other side's position? The bottom line is that we'd be
censoring someone's post based on a complaint that may or may not be well
founded.
Bob is not so sure; his position is that
We simply should not let defamatory content
remain. At the very least, the possibility that they could be the victim
of such an attack will discourage other users; we want to encourage
our users! We need to have a clear standard of behavior; this is about
"takedown" and not about arguing the points of libel.The bottom line is
that we cannot side with injustice, any more than we can side with
harassment.
Your job is to propose a policy and then argue in support of it. If you
leave something out of the policy, such as a way for users to complain that
they have been unfairly depicted, be sure you explain why
you don't think the feature is necessary. You should also make clear whether
features of your policy are their to address legal risk to the site or are
there to make users feel more comfortable.
You can take a legalistic approach, an ethical approach, or a combination.
When making ethical arguments in a business context it is sometimes helpful
to recognize that ethical behavior can be closely tied to a business's own
long-term self-interest.
Your paper (either topic) will be graded primarily on organization (that is,
how you lay out your sequence of paragraphs), focus (that is, whether you
stick to the topic), and the nature and completeness of your arguments.
It is essential that all material
from other sources be enclosed in quotation marks (or set off as a block
quote), and preferably with a citation to the original source as well.
Expected length: 3-5 pages (1000+ words)