- CHAPTER SIX QUESTION SIX
- # 1
- Strong arguments can be given as to why encryption tools are needed to safeguard communications in cyberspace, yet these tools can be used by terrorists and criminals to protect their communications in cyberspace. (a) In the wake of September 11, can a case be made for not allowing ordinary users to employ strong encryption tools in Internet communications? (b) Can we still claim to live in a free society if plans for government interception of email communications, as provided for in the Homeland Security Act
- (a) The increasing ingenuity of individuals has made it hard for the government decides on whether to continue using security measures especially with them no longer considered a part of big cooperates and organs. The argument against the use of security measures is greatly supported after the occurrence of terrorist attack on September 11. A comprehensive investigation proved the terrorist had used encrypted messaging to communicate and transact financial aspects o the attack. It is evident that encryption of data has served as a rhetorical effect in that it has been used by terrorist to serve the same purpose it was created to prevent. The purpose of encryption has been greatly diminished though from a broader perspective it rather holds weigh the total negligent of the same considering that this would only create an open field for worsen effects. The question of, dismissal of encryption is out of the table. The only solution is to implement stronger encryption methods.
- (b)From a figurative analysis, it would not be so since it directly infringes human rights core to provision of privacy to all individuals by default. If the case is looked at from a hypothetical point of view, it states the obvious clearly. It is a question of trusting the government to be responsible for our lives or to simply put our private needs first and damn the consequences. The latter would mean subjecting ourselves to the mercies of terrorists by allowing them transact at discretion without fear of identification.
- #2
- In the discussion of Internet anonymity, some forms of anonymous behavior in cyberspace can have profound ethical implications. Imagine that there is a very close political election involving two candidates who are running for a seat in a state legislature. The weekend before citizens will cast their votes, one candidate decides to defame his opponent by using an anonymous remailer service (which strips away the original address of the sender of the email) to send a message of questionable truth to an electronic distribution list of his opponent’s supporters. The information included in this email is so defamatory that it may threaten the outcome of the election by influencing many undecided voters, as well as the libeled candidate’s regular supports, to vote against her. (a) Does the “injured” candidate in this instance have the right to demand that the identity of the person using the anonymous remailer (who she suspects for good reasons to be her opponent in this election) be revealed. (b) Why or why not? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)
- (a)The law strictly restricts the victimized candidate from directly acquiring this information especially on biased grounds. However, in most instances it allows for the revealing of the anonymous party based on the grounds that one there is substantial proof or motif for the commitment of the crime.
- (b) authorities have a provision for the clause to ensure that incase the message diplays some form of hat speech the sender can be easily identified. The case above is a clear indication of hate speech hence the victim should acquire the mail address. This should not be done on biased terms lest the law lacks meaning
- CHAPTER EIGHT QUESTION EIGHT
- # 1
- (a) Has protection for proprietary software gone too far, as some critics suggest? (b) If not, why? (c) If so, what are the implications for innovation and competition in the computer industry? (d) How can we achieve an appropriate balance between those who hold legal rights to proprietary information and ordinary users who wish to access, share, and communicate that information?
- (a)Laws have generally played a pivotal role in the maintenance of work ethics and most importantly ensuring that there is the right to ownership. Soft ware’s are intangibles by default hence the right to ownership has become a matter of concern. Due to its fragile state and its likely hood for copywriting, it plays subject to a variety of laws that in turn have created a negative perception to a wide range of user and opinionates.
- (b)From my perspective, tangible or intangible, the right o ownership applies regardless of the object being discussed. A fundamental reason for the existence of propriety software is to encourage inventors innovation and motivates them create more and better soft ware’s especially by ensuring them that their work is safe from copy writing. It assures that the inventor is given their due cost of invention by preventing their software from copywriting.
- (d)Balance is obtained between the two by denying the inventor right over his creation as soon as he relinquishes the property to another party by way of sale or agreed terms. This is known as first sale doctrine. Bodies responsible for the cumbering of software inventions copywriting ensure that they prevent illegal down load and uphold of software.
- #3
- (a) What is meant by “intellectual commons”? (b) How is this commons disappearing in the cyberage? (c) Does Mr. Boyle’s suggestion that a political movement, similar to the environmental movement in the 1970s, is needed to save the commons merit further consideration?
- (a)Intellectual commons act as both source of information and as places information can be openly shared. One is at liberty to deposit any information when using intellectual commons and is also free to use the information present at the source. Intellectual commons vary from books to blogs to classrooms.
- (b) The cyber age has taken control of information in that information can now not be easily obtained as it was in the past. The right of ownership has made it impossible for the commoner access information at will as is opposed to the application of the commons. The right to information has made it hard for sharing of information as it promotes profiteering for the holder of the information.
- (c)Boyels hypothesis is not warrant further consideration especially after the invention of creative commons. Creative commons is a nonprofit organization that was created by Lawrence Lessig and others in 2011. Creative commons are essentially of the purpose of sharing knowledge and meaning easily without conforming to strict copyright rules. They make it easy to access information that would have otherwise being restricted by giving the copy right the opportunity to relinquish a part of their ownership. This of great aid especially in the education parameters as it has allowed academicians access knowledge freely. It is with this in mind that I refute to the purpose of James hypothesis. James hypothesis only poses as a reactive means considering that we already have a proactive measure that is fully functional
- CHAPTER NINE QUESTION NINE
- #4
- (a) Describe some of the issues underlying the free speech vs. censorship debate in cyberspace. (b) What is meant by “free speech”? (c) Describe the differences between what Catudal calls “censorship by suppression” and what he calls “censorship by deterrence”? (d) Is this distinction useful for understanding some of the complex issues surrounding censorship? Defend your answer and please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension) LO 5
- (a)The concept of censorship has been of great magnitude especially putting into context the fact that media outlets are being subjected to the same. The American library association quotes censorship to be the changing of material made by the represented by a governing body. The media has subjected to numerous changes in context. There has been a long debate on whether the same should be extended to the internet though the biggest question being if this crosses the line to the right of free speech. Freedom of speech is a right to citizens though it does not pass for amnesty as it is subject to government review at numerous instances. This in essence gives both t the conflicting state in that even when censorship is applied to serve a great cause such as protecting the youth it is still subject to infringement of freedom of speech as it is denying those who would want to know the information regardless of the perceived repercussions.
- (b)it is the right of one to be at leniency to share what they feel to the general public without constrains from the government
- (c) Both censorship entail to the factor of authority by a supreme power to overwrite certain details by right of their mandate. The difference between the two is s a brought about by the actual level or type of prohibition. Censorship by supreme affects the consequent by default of it content. That is details that entail to the subjected such are either edited or prohibited from the public all together. Censorship by deterrence on the other hand entails to the implementation of warning vices that are used to ensure that the perpetrator is warned before they conform to committing of crime. In most cases the subject are warned by threat of arrest or conviction. The individual who made the material available is the one who takes the blame for the action.
- (d) The distinction between the two terminologies ensures that one is knowledgeable of the reparations one would face in case one is proven to be being guilty of a perpetrating actions that go against the fundamentals, that go against rules that govern censorship. The two distinctions definitely play a key role in the differentiating of the basic aspects as they ensure that details pertaining to the aspect of censorship are clearly explained to detail.
- #2
- a) Describe some concerns involving pornography in cyberspace. (b) Why was the Communications Decency Act (CDA), sections which were designed to protect children from concerns about pornography on the Internet, so controversial? (c) Why was it eventually struck down? (d) Why were both COPA and (portions of) CPPA struck down as being unconstitutional? (e) Should they have been declared unconstitutional? Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses.
- (a) The continuo’s use of sex as a tool in the media advertisement has constituted to the creation of a sexual climate in individuals in that individuals have subjected to addiction of the same. The exposing of sexually explicit content to the general population has created a profound impact in that laws specifically employed in the restriction on the same have been poorly implemented by law enforcers and consequently have led to the expose of the same to the younger generation. Pornographic content is easily available to the general audience in the internet with little or no safe guarding measures to protect the young generation from the same. In essence the internet has not created sexual addicts but has only created a platform for the birth of the characters
- (b) The act sounded controversial in essence of the vindications it considered to justify the use internet to adults while safeguarding the child from pornography. Two particular acts dictate the use of internet knowingly to watch pornography as warrant arrest if the perpetrator was under the age of 18.
- (c) The act was struck down after a motion to have it banned was passed in by a supreme high court
- (d) The question of freedom of speech has been the biggest obstacle in the passage of laws even to present date. It is difficult to pass laws that only affect a single group of people without considering the general population and the effects the law as on them. The law does not advocate for biased behavior no matter the value attached to the vice. Before a law concerning people is passed it must first be considered to be for the better of everyone. Failure to this the law will not advocate for it. This was the case for the COPA ,and CPPA.
- (e) Yes, they should have. The laws were prejudicial to a focused group and did not consider the rights of the focused group making it by decree of law impossible to exercise such laws.
- #1
- (a) What are some of the important distinctions between legal liability, moral responsibility, and accountability as applied to ISPs? (a) Do Vedder’s and Spinello’s arguments succeed in showing why ISPs should be held morally accountable? (c) Apply their arguments to the Amy Boyer case of cyberstalking talked about in chapter 1. (d) Should Tripod and Geocities be held accountable? (e) Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses.
- (a)ISPS are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that they monitor content that is being transmitted from their facilities. In case any cyber crimes should happen under their noses they should be considered liable. They should prevent incidences such as cyber stalking by ensuring that there are firm governing policies in place. Though this has been proved wrong from testament of past cases involving ISP cases have shown that ISPS are not accountable for crime perpetuated by use of their facilities. They are therefore legally unaccounted for in case of crimes. Moral responsibility of the ISP is in connection to the human nature. ISPS should consider the fact that crimes were committed on their watch and take moral responsibility by admitting to be equal counterparts and as a gesture of good faith they should compensate the victim
- (b) No they do not not assert to the fact that ISPS should be morally responsible for the crimes perpetuated against victims of the internet. This is clearly shown in the case of Amy Boyer who is victimized at the hands of two ISPS. The fact Geocities and Tripod both walk free \after the grueling case proves that both hypotheses are wrong.
- (c) I believe in being pragmatic and calling like it like it is and in this case the line is clear-cut that two ISPS were not liable for atrocities that bewildered Amy. They were only but conduits that facilitated the crime. Even on moral grounds, it would not justify incriminating the two ISPS for crimes they did not commit.
- CHAPTER 10 QUESTION 10
- #2
- (a) What obligations does the United States have, as a democratic nation concerned with guaranteeing equal opportunities for all its citizens, to ensure that all its citizens have full access to the Internet? (b) Does the United States also have obligations to developing countries to ensure that they have global access to the Internet? If so, (c) What is the extent of those obligations? If not, (d) Why? For example, (e) Should engineers working in the United States and other developed countries design applications to ensure that people living in remote areas with low connectivity and poor bandwidth have reasonable Internet access? If so, (f) Who should pay for the development of these software applications? If not, (g) Why? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and the
- (a)united states has the mandate to ensure that all its citizens have internet in their respective homes. The government should ensure that facilities of internet access are readily available to those who cannot afford or private connections. The government should also provide for subsidies that gives the middle level citizen the capability to purchase band width. The allocation of a budgetary funds on the same dictates that the government provide for accessible internet services.
- (b)The united state is not obligated to ensure that developed countries receive internet but it has the power to provide for it if it so wishes to. The United States government has the necessary facilities to enable this happen and can gunner for supporters to the cause by use of its influence. It’s rather a question of moral obligation than it is a responsibility. The United States government is not obligated to provide for internet to developing countries. It may only choose to do so at will
- (e)The united states government has a skilled work force that can be of a great plus to developing countries in case they are of the interest of acquiring an articulated internet connection. The united states cannot have its labor force work for an outside country without pay hence the question of having this occur is unacceptable. I don not condemn the issue fully but to my perspective it holds no ground.
- #1
- (a) Do we, as a society, have a special obligation to disabled persons to ensure that they have full Internet access? (b) Is the argument that by providing improved access and services for disabled persons, non disabled users will benefit as well, a reasonable argument? Consider that it can be dangerous to reason along this line; for example, suppose that non disabled persons did not benefit from software applications designed for the disabled. (c) Would that be a reason for not investing in software for disabled people? Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)
- (a)The internet has provided for a variety of sources where people can easily access information that they need for educational services. To deny a section of the society of this would e to subject others to a lesser educational background. With this in mind, it is important that we consider providing those that are unfortunate in the society with the ability to source this vice to the even betterment of the society as a whole.
- (b)The ensuring that all members of the society all have access to internet is to ensure that there is equal right between individuals. It is believed that the access to internet by a single group of people and denial of the rest is the denying of the disadvantaged group to rights that the advantaged group have. This in turn constitutes a crime as it gives the advantaged group power over the disadvantaged ones. To ensure that there is equality in the society the provision of internet to them would go a long way to bridging of the gap. The disabled will notice the effort of the able and in a way, it will suffice for any prejudicial intents.
- (c)Disabled people are more likely to take the concept of having internet on a simplified level. Their potential of fully investing into the vice is reduced in that they are more likely to engage into the usage of internet for trivial reasons such as for entertainment purposes. The provision of internet services for the disabled is more likely to cause racism in that different race with different wants realize that they differ on a connotative perception in that they are less likely to identify equal opportunities that the rest are acquiring from the internet.
-
- CHAPTER 11 QUESTION 11
- #2
- Birsch and Graham (Tavani, 2007, p348) clearly have distinct views where VR experiences are concerned. (a) Do you agree with Graham or Birsch? (b) Why? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)
- (a)Graham and Brisch both have compelling notions on the future of virtue technology and its longevity. Graham suggests that even with the advancement in technology people will never suffice experiences they have in real reality for virtual reality. Brich on the other hand suggests that virtual reality is a better alternative to real reality and can be used to substitute the same. (b)Brishs hypothesis is more compelling in that technology has become a way of life for people at present and is far from the myth it was at a distant past. Technology factors in all aspects of life and has proven to be irreplaceable by any means possible making it easy for people to choose it over anything.
- #3
- Assess the arguments advanced by Graham, Sunstein, and Sclove as to whether Internet technology should be used to promote and spread democracy and democratic ideals. Whose argument do you find most convincing? Should the Internet be used to enhance democracy? Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)
- Sunstein draws his reasoning on the presence of online grouping terming it as a source to social meltdowns. He claims that the continuous grouping of individuals in turn creates a sense of like mildness between individuals and prevents comprehensive argument. According to susstein the new groups created subject others to bullying in that through unison they have discovered their power in numbers. this has in turn made it to change or to influence demographic factors that are otherwise simple to implement but are now harder by . The internet is a general source of information but the constant exploitation leads to a dysfunction basic society unwilling to be controlled or guided.
-
- CHAPTER 12 QUESTION 12
- #2
- Evaluate the arguments that were examined for and against future research in nanotechnology. Given the potential advantages and disadvantages of future development in this area, which side’s arguments do you find more convincing? Do the criteria provided by Weckert for when research in a particular area should and should not be allowed offer us any guidelines for research in nanotechnology? Which kinds of ethical guidelines need to be built into research and development in this field? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)
- (a)Nanotechnology subject since its invention to date has drawn numerous debate that has even yielded utter disagreement due to diverse people having conflicting ideas. The reasons for and against on each side reveals a big gap that exists in the midst, which cannot be narrowed and people come into agreement. For instance, those arguing against especially the southern states of America claim that it have negative effects on the environment, hence in a way affecting humanity survival. The group side’s argument is similarly supported by Pat Mooney who likens nanotechnology advancement with PC computers. The future research is unpredictable with intriguing prospects that will entail bringing materials to life. This molecular manufacturing is highly criticized by the opposing side.
- (b)Referring to the future advancements the anticipation of diverse modifications which will be incorporated in this research, it is intriguing and will benefit the society. However, this has not occurred but numerous global communities is waiting for best things ahead that will be of good help to the society, hence making the pro group’s support more convincing. Weckert’s criterion does not offer adequately guidelines for research having in mind research usually have numerous alterations that in the beginning cannot be predicted.
- #1
- (a) Identify and describe three potential social and ethical concerns (not mentioned in our text) arising as a result of converging technologies. (b) Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (knowledge)
- Fan culture
- Due to accessibility and proximity offered by converging technologies enables the development of the fan sharing among the global community. This will entail much interacting to the people and even sharing social life denied by distance.
- Messaging
- Communication is guaranteed at any moment where even electronically sources can even act as references and conversing instantly with absence of verbal involvement.
- Internet
- This links people globally entailing people to undertake diverse tasks especially global market, which benefits immensely from this aspect. Transaction and even security matters can be solved adequately via technology, thus increasing comfort to humanity.
- References
- The leading source of legal news and analysis. (2002). Home land security act[data file].retrieved from http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hsa2002.pdf
- Nanotechnology. (2010). Nano technology basic news and general formation[data file] retrieved from www.nanotech-now.com
- Cybierstalking, personal privacy, and moral responsibility(2009)springerlink[data] file retrieved from www.springerlink.com/index/klk45j454m882r75.pdf
3988 Words 14 Pages
