Computer Ethics Paper 2

Due: Friday, April 19, 2013

Topic option 1: Facebook Facial Recognition

What exactly are the privacy issues with Facebook facial recognition? Is this another feature with serious unforeseen ("submarine") consequences to our privacy, or is that an overreaction?

Right now, Facebook claims (when they acknowledge the software at all) that their facial-recognition software is only used to suggest tags for identifying Friends in photos. For this kind of use, facial recognition is completely covered by the existing Facebook Terms of Use, in that they can gather data about you. And the actual pictures are in fact given to Facebook. You can do facial recognition yourself, by eye: if you see a picture that includes you, you can compare others in the picture with the profile pictures of your Facebook Friends, or even Friends of Friends.

But are there implications that go beyond that? Serious implications? How does this change the user experience within Facebook? Does it make some things quantitatively or qualitatively different? Consider Timeline, for example: in principle Timeline just makes it easier for you to organize your page. In practice, Timeline makes it much easier for people to view your past, long before you Friended them. Are you in any significant ways more "exposed" with facial recognition? Could someone use it to find out information about you that you otherwise might want to keep secret? After all, your Facebook profile picture is world-viewable already.

Are there any issues with data being used in ways that normal Facebook users would not expect?

Are there any features Facebook could limit that might preserve your privacy?

If you don't see serious questions with the feature as it is today (or even if you do), you might consider the implications of the following hypothetical future Facebook feature: you upload a picture to Facebook, and they suggest who it might be, without limiting suggestions only to Friends. How would such a feature change your privacy? Are there limitations or user protections to facial recognition that Facebook should always keep in place? Along the same lines, you may if you wish consider the consequences if outsiders had more-or-less full access to Facebook's database and recognition algorithms. What concerns might that bring? Note the importance of the database: Chicago (and other cities) has surveillance cameras in place, but no large database linking faces to names.

If there is not an issue now, what would it take for one to emerge? Are we on some kind of slippery or not-so-slippery slope? Or is this an ineluctable and relatively straightforward consequence of our uploading pictures at all?

See Baase, 4ed, first full paragraph on p 51 and Section 2.2.4

See also http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57502284-93/why-you-should-be-worried-about-facial-recognition-technology/.

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 available.

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 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 (800+ words)