Week 4 February 7 ================= [omit?] Hacker Ethic [p 22] v Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics [p 23] Technological Progress ---------------------- Life with Napster quote: pp 25-26 Is there really a Dark Side? Or has technology [broadband Internet] made that irrelevant? p 27: William Mitchell, dean at MIT: books are "tree flakes encased in dead cow" Charles Mann: "who will curl up with a computer in bed?" What did iPod do to this sentiment? H&I was written in pre-iPod world ===================== David Post & Jefferson's moose: interesting metaphor We need to open up to new ideas Touretzky DeCSS site: Music and Software RENTAL From copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html: On December 1, 1990, President Bush signed into law the "Computer Software Rental Amendments Act," an amendment of section 109 of the copyright law, prohibiting the rental, lease, or lending of a computer program for direct or indirect commercial gain unless authorized by the owner of copyright in the program. Behind the amendment was a concern that commercial rental of computer programs encourages illegal copying of the rented programs, depriving copyright owners of a return on their investment and discouraging creation of new works. [first-sale doctrine is voided, for SOFTWARE ONLY] Involuntary parodies: South Park www.xkcd.com/c78.html Bored of the Rings wondermark.com wondermark.com/wm_stripdoc_index.html ============================================================================== ============================================================================== Start Privacy Privacy from: * government * commercial interests * workplace * local community (ie online info about us) Some things we want to keep private: * past lives * life setbacks * medical histories (including mental health) * finances * alcohol/drug use * most sexual matters, licit or not * private digressions from public facade * different facades in different settings [friends, work, church] * comments we make to friends in context * minor transgressions (tax deductions, speeding, etc) Fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. What do computers have to do with privacy? Old reason: they make it possible to store (and share) so much more data Newer reasons: they enable complex data mining Allow us to find info on others via google Records are kept that we never suspected (eg google searches) electronic eavesdropping ====================================== Case 1: genetics testing Note DUAL reasons: govt security issue (nuclear terrorism) employer issue How would you answer the claim that being in a gov't DNA database could only be a problem if you are guilty? Case 2: Smyth v Pillsbury note that what is at issue is the TORT of invasion. Whatever happened to the CONTRACTUAL issue? How would the case have been different if: pillsbury had an email policy allowing such access? pillsbury had no policy at all? What are employers' interests in email exchange? Were the emails read out-of-context? (that is, Smyth and his boss were just being aggressive) Does OWNERSHIP matter? No!! ownership of a phone ownership of stationery ownership of an apartment building ========================================================================== # Smyth v. Pillsbury: Pennsylvania # Bourke v. Nissan: California similar: Bourke worked for Nissan; email was reviewed, she got low evaluation # Shoars v. Epson: California Shoars asked for a private email account, and was fired. Epson had informed employees that email was "private & confidential" Discuss Smyth v Pillsbury: Contract v Tort Judge held that corporate eavesdropping is not offensive. Duh. (Could it be offensive IF the company had promised not to??) Judge says Smyth lost because email was "utilized by entire company" and Smyth's emails were "voluntary". Were they? Reasonable expectation of privacy does NOT mean the search is "offensive" Only searches that are "offensive" would allow legal action regarding firing of an "at-will" employee. Judge: Pillsbury's actions did not "tortuously" invade privacy unstated by judge: prevention of sexual harassment as justification. Arguably, though, this kind of talk between "buddies", with the self-image projected to fit that context, is EXACTLY what Westin is talking about. Not all context is "professional". What if Pillsbury recorded water-cooler or bathroom conversation? What the heck *is* a "reasonable expectation of privacy"??? "In the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, there can be no violation of the right to privacy." Could Smyth have sued for DAMAGES, instead of reinstatement? Footnote to judge's ruling: [eh-STOP-uhl] FN2. Although plaintiff does not affirmatively allege so in his Complaint ... the allegations in the Complaint might suggest that plaintiff is alleging an exception to the at-will employment rule based on estoppel, i.e. that defendant repeatedly assured plaintiff and others that it would not intercept e-mail communications and reprimand or terminate based on the contents thereof and plaintiff relied on these assurances to his detriment when he made the "inappropriate and unprofessional" e-mail communications in October 1994. The law of Pennsylvania is clear, however, that an employer may not be estopped from firing an employee based upon a promise, even when reliance is demonstrated. Paul v. Lankenau Hospital, 524 Pa. 90, 569 A.2d 346 (1990). Jurisdiction problems: what if one party to an email lives in a state that grants statutory privacy protections? This problem comes up all the time with phone calls: Plaintiffs: Kelly Kearney, Mark Levy Worldcom case: Plaintiffs calls were recorded in Georgia, but plaintiffs were calling from California, which forbids that without notification of ALL parties. What about use of, say, a personal gmail account while at work? If employer monitors transactions with gmail.com? If employer obtains email from google directly? Persistence: email sticks around, although people USE it as if it were like the phone. Loyola's policy: Privacy on University electronic mail systems [1997-1998] http://www.luc.edu/its/policy_email_general.shtml (Text of policy moved to following week)