Computer Ethics Paper 2
Due: Monday, April 11, 2016
Topic option 1: Encryption
How far should the government be able to go to make sure it can read or
listen to your encrypted communications when it feels this is necessary to
fight crime or to protect public safety? Do you have any rights of privacy
in the use of encryption? Do your rights vary according to the current
external-threat level? Consider, for example, the following positions:
- Encryption should be available to everyone; people are entitled to
privacy.
- Governments should encourage the use of encryption systems that they
-- but not most other adversaries -- have the ability to break.
- Use of strong encryption should be legal grounds for suspicion.
- Encryption between client and server is fine -- where the government
can tap in with a warrant as necessary at the server end -- but
end-to-end encryption should be strongly discouraged.
- The government should be able to require that device-makers make
available to them any (or most) encryption keys stored on a device, and
devices should be required to retain temporary session keys to make this
possible.
- The government should be able to demand keys from individuals
when necessary; again, standard programs should be required to retain
any session keys. (Note that this would enable eavesdropping only after
the fact, as the individual would necessarily be notified.)
- The government should be able to order software and hardware companies
(eg Apple or WhatsApp) to create software updates (or other forms of
backdoors) that enable eavesdropping on specific individuals.
- The government should be able to demand software-update-signing keys
from software and hardware companies so that the government can create
software updates that enable eavesdropping on specific individuals.
- Commercial end-to-end encryption should be banned; this would limit
its use to criminals and open-source privacy advocates.
- Private end-to-end encryption should be banned in all cases.
- The government should go back to its pre-2000 policy of banning export
of encryption (and thus of the free distribution of open-source
encryption tools).
- The government should be able to determine what forms of end-to-end
encryption are permissible, and should be able to criminalize the use of
unauthorized encryption.
Take a position (possibly but not necessarily one of the above or a
reasonable combination of the above) and defend it. You may assume the
eavesdropping is authorized by a court-issued search warrant (though if you
want to address problems with too-lax rules for issuing warrants, or address
rules for what constitutes "reasonable suspicion", as part of your overall
argument, that's fine). You may also argue for differing positions depending
on the actual threat level.
Topic option 2: Defamation Policy
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has made it nearly impossible
to take down user-posted content. This, along with the DMCA, has enabled the
rise of third-party-content sites. Some of these are mainstream, such as
YouTube and Wikipedia. Some, like Reddit, are known for the freedom provided
for users to say what they want. And some, like The Dirty, are simply in the
business of encouraging salacious gossip.
The original goal of §230, however, was to protect sites that did
family-friendly editing. Has §230 gone too far? If not, try to identify the
important principles behind §230 and defend them. If so, outline some sort
of alternative, and explain whether your alternative should be based on
regulation -- and if so how this would be implemented -- or on voluntary
website cooperation. As an example of the latter, note how Google has
limited visibility of user posts on YouTube, and made it harder to post
anonymously.
Here are a few things to keep in mind.
Compuserve escaped liability because they did no editing
of user-posted content. Should this position continue to receive the highest
protection, or should some limited editing of user-posted
content be considered the norm?
Should new §230 rules require some element of family-friendly editing, or
editing to attain some other socially appropriate goal? If a site engages in
some form of editing of user-posted content, under what circumstances should
the site escape liability?
Should sites that "encourage" inappropriate posts, by explicit and
intentional policy, be held responsible?
Should there be a take-down requirement for disparaging posts? If so, how
would you protect sites from celebrities or politicians who wanted nothing
negative about them to appear on the Internet?
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, as usual, 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)