Computer Ethics Paper 2
Due: Friday, July 21, 2013
Topic option 1: Google Glass
Is Google Glass a
game-changer for personal privacy, or is it just another gadget that doesn't
really erode our privacy any more than a cellphone with camera?
Google glass is essentially a wearable version of a smartphone. There is a
built-in camera, as with all smartphones, and one can browse the internet
while still looking more or less straight ahead. The camera and other
features can be controlled through voice, touching the Glass temple piece,
or blinking. Unlike a phone, Glass overlays its display on your view of the
real world, for better visual integration.
Glass has at least some privacy implications for the wearer, in addition to
those for the rest of us. One proposed concern for the wearer is that you
may inadvertently record such things as your ATM PIN.
Google has attempted to address some privacy concerns related to Glass. To
this end, for example, they have banned facial-recognition software from the
device (https://plus.google.com/+projectglass/posts/fAe5vo4ZEcE).
If there is not a (significant, new) privacy
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 smaller and smaller cameras?
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 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 (800+ words)