Computer Ethics Paper 2

Due: Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Topic option 1: Encryption

Should our society embrace the full use of encryption? Or should the government discourage (or even restrict) its use, in the interest of fighting crime or protecting public safety? Or should we be somewhere in between? Consider, for example, the following positions:
  1. Encryption should be available to everyone; people are entitled to privacy.
  2. Governments should encourage the use of encryption systems that they -- but not most other adversaries -- have the ability to break.
  3. Use of strong encryption should be legal grounds for suspicion.
  4. 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.
  5. The government should be able to require that device-makers make available to them any encryption keys stored on a device (such as the Apple iPhone), and devices should be required to retain all temporary session keys for this purpose.
  6. 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.
  7. The government should be able to demand software-update-signing keys from software and hardware companies so that the government itself can create software updates that enable eavesdropping on specific individuals.
  8. Commercial end-to-end encryption should be banned; this would limit its use to criminals and open-source privacy advocates.
  9. Private end-to-end encryption should be banned in all cases.
  10. The government should be able to order you to decrypt anything you have encrypted.
  11. The government should be able to criminalize the use of unauthorized encryption.
Which of these are appropriate? Do people have any privacy-related rights in the use of encryption? Do these rights vary according to the current external-threat level?

Take a position 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

Has §230 of the Communications Decency Act gone too far?

This law 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 simply to protect sites that did family-friendly editing.

If you feel §230 has been overused, 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 civil litigation (lawsuits), or 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.

If you feel §230 should remain unchanged, try to identify the important principles behind §230 and defend them.

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)