you are: contents > Article 4

Ethics and the Internet

Scott P. Muir

Introduction

The Internet is having a substantive effect on how people in our society behave and interact. For the first time in our history children are more comfortable and knowledgeable with a technology than are their parents, and there are important considerations in this switch (Tapscott, 1998). Telecommunication networks and computer technology are leading the change that is transforming our lives and we lack the resources to understand how to cope with the ethical changes (Stahl, 1999). The internet put us in touch with the entire interconnected world with the ability to hurt, misunderstand, or infuriate through unintended cultural differences (Langford, 2000).

The extensive amount of time some spend online (Sparks, 2005) can lead to depression and other mental health related problems due to the lack of meaningful interactions and close relationships with friends and family. Young people who spend hours online and limit their social interactions with their peers can become socially isolated as they lack opportunities to improve their social skills (Bostick, 2005). Online interaction is just not the same. New students on a campus may find that they do not explore their new environment and make friends through their campus, potentially leaving them isolated and alone. And Dad has now been replaced by the Internet for advice (Internet replaces dad, 2005).

In our day-to-day dealings with other people, there are social mores that govern our interactions with each person. We likely behave differently with our boss than with a co-worker; we treat a professor or dean differently than a classmate. And typically in dealing with people we do not know, we maintain some polite social distance. However on the internet, we lack many of those same ethical touchstones to guide our behavior.

This paper will not discuss intentional criminal behavior; things such as identity theft, scamming people for money, breaking into unauthorized computer systems and other such behaviors that go beyond the scope of this research. Instead this paper will focus on netiquette and censorship, plagiarism, copyright, and music downloading.

Netiquette and Censorship

A search of the Internet brings forth a number of articles about rampant rudeness on the web (Merle). The term “Netiquette” has been around for quite some time. It was formed from a combination of the words “network” and “etiquette” (Scheuermann, Taylor, 1997). It is used to describe codes of behavior that various online communities have developed over time (Ornatowski, 2001). The intent of netiquette is to provide guidelines or rules of behavior online in an effort to combat rudeness. Americans use the very poorest etiquette when using the email and cell phones, etc. that they rely on the most and distance makes it easier to be confrontational (Careaga, 2005). While not included here there are a number of sources for appropriate etiquette on the internet (Langford, 2000; Merle; Scheuermann, Taylor, 1997). There are a number of challenges here because there is no tone of voice and no body language that gives us clues in our day-to-day in person communications (Scheuermann, Taylor, 1997). It is also easy to disguise who you really are (Langford, 2000). A child can pose as an adult, a young man, or as an old woman.

In many ways behaviors online mirror those in everyday life. A Pew study showed that teenage girls use Instant Message buddy lists as a tool to exclude other girls from their social circles (Careaga, 2005). Researchers have also found that 39% of American teens aged 12 to 17 admitted to saying things over text messaging or instant messaging that they would not normally say to someone in person. A key part of the challenge is that no one is exactly in control of internet communication (Scheuermann, Taylor, 1997).

In some cases, an organization providing the internet service tries to control what happens, although that can be very controversial. For example, witness the implementation of filters on library computers. In other cases, a corporation such as AOL will censor some of what occurs on their site. This, too, is controversial and they are sometimes referred to as thought police (Kandra, 2004, Langford, 2000). This also raises important concerns on the rights to free speech and the issue of privacy (Langford, 2000).

When Internet filters try to control what people can see, it raises a question. Are these filters a valuable tool to eliminate violence and explicit sexual content or are they instead some form of extremist thought control? Each of these filters is subjective and some of them eliminate sites that might provide useful information, such as the classic case of a site that filtered out information on breast cancer in an attempt to avoid pictures of breasts in a pornographic sense. Filters have another downside in that they can limit access based on social decisions, e.g. sites on AIDS or homosexuality (Krantz, 1997). It also raises the question when a site such as AOL filters information, are they acting in good faith or are they starting to take responsibilities more appropriately assigned to parents?

Finally there are questions about the effectiveness of filters. Statistics from one study show that they are only 80% effective and that students can work around them. This same study also shows that 70% of 13 and 14 year olds go into chat rooms where they might be exposed to adult content and discussions (Jones, 2002).

This area is perhaps the grayest of the three areas in this paper because it brings together the issue of free speech and freedom of choice into potential conflict with good behavior and the welfare of society as a whole. This will continue to be a topic of conversation for some time as we determine how to handle these ethical choices.

Plagiarism

Plagiarizing is easier today in the Internet environment than it ever has been. There are a number of traditional reasons why students plagiarize, but these will not be explored here. Cut-and-paste or easily purchased prewritten papers have shifted the ease with which it can occur (http://www.plagiarism.org). In the past, a plagiarist at least had to go to the library, do some research, copy down notes or photocopy the material where others could watch, possibly hide the source document somewhere in the library to avoid being caught, making this a very public event. Now one can do it all online in the privacy of one's own room (Bugjea, 2004). However, plagiarism is not a technology problem; it is a problem of ethical behavior, honesty, and correct citation of resources (Hansen, 2003).

Plagiarism is a form of cheating and cheating sets a pattern for life (Phillips & Horton, 2000). It rips at the fabric of our society and is a key part to a student’s moral development. Students who cheat are less likely to learn writing skills needed for their future assignments and careers (Martin, 2005; Phillips & Horton, 2000). We have seen university presidents resign and the New York Times was rocked by scandal when Jason Blair’s plagiarism and made up stories became public (Hansen, 2003).

One change is a generational factor. The issue is not so much that students today are more dishonest or less moral, but the ease of transfer of information has formed new and different attitudes about information, intellectual property, and authorship (Wood, 2004; Kraus, 2002). Many students believe that materials that they find online are free for the taking (Hansen, 2003). The idea is that they are just circulating what already exists similar to a webpage that is often less important for original content than for the links it contains (Kraus, 2002). The sheer volume of resources available through the web can create a sense that there is nothing new to be said about a given topic (Hansen, 2003). In the past students began with a blank sheet of paper in a typewriter, but today it is the already filled screen of the internet (Kraus, 2002).

Collaborative groups also give students mixed messages about intellectual ownership (Wood, 2004). The Wikipedia collective work has created a different perspective on intellectual property (Kraus, 2002). Students do not consider their own work as being original and having value. While they would not steal, this seems different and they do not see plagiarism as stealing (Wood, 2004). Finally, one student opined that because he had paid for a paper purchased online that it was “his” (Hansen, 2003).

Statistics from organizations such as plagiarism.org (http://www.plagiarism.org) and other sites show high rates of plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty. Students lean best how to do stuff by doing it themselves (Kraus, 2002). Teachers need to educate students thoroughly on what plagiarism is and they should be taught how to cite correctly. Teachers need to be very clear on penalties for plagiarism. Most importantly teachers can help their students understand and hear their individual voices (Kraus, 2002).

Copyright and Music Downloading

96% of Canadian students agreed that stealing software from a store is a serious offense, but only 40 % felt that way about downloaded software (Weber, 2005). For some reason this is not viewed as the same thing as walking into a record store and swiping a CD. A Pew (2000) study showed that half to three quarters of those who download music do not think of it as stealing, and over half of internet users say that downloading music is not stealing, with almost a third stating it is just a high-tech version of swapping audio cassettes, which has been done without impunity. While there is some question on the legality of cassette swapping, most record studios only pursued the most egregious violators (Adrianson, 2003). Today, digital technology allows high quality, nearly perfect copies that are easily swapped or sold via the internet, and this has changed the dynamic.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) blames file swapping and music sharing for a 31% drop in CD sales since 2000 (Batstone, 2004). Another study shows that there are declining sales going from sixty million for the Top-Ten albums in 2000 to thirty-four million in 2002 (Adrianson, 2003). As a result the RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits against individuals downloading music is an effort to combat declining sales.

The web is a very public forum and this allows of the detection of file swapping (Adrianson, 2003). One can be caught if one downloads only one song (Drexel, 2000), because the RIAA can search a peer-to-peer network and see the transactions. Some claim that the RIAA has engaged in bullying and intimidation tactics. While file swapping is a likely cause of some of the decline, other factors that impact sales might be the high unemployment rate and the poor performance of the economy (Henderson, 2004).

The RIAA is basing its lawsuits on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which protects copyrighted materials by forbidding circumventing technological measures that are intended to protect some materials (Spinello, 2004). The DMCA has given unprecedented extensions to the copyright of materials (Henderson, 2004). This law is 200 pages in length and unclear to most people. The less understandable and less workable a law, the less likely people are to comply with it and less likely to feel they are violating the law (Litman, 2003; Henderson, 2004).

Today’s copyright law also views your favorite singer in the same legal eyes as it does Microsoft. Copyright law is not protecting the artists anymore; it is protecting the big corporate interests (Henderson, 2004). Given the belief that the RIAA does not represent the individual artists, but the big recording industry itself, many people who download consider themselves ripping off a big corporation and not the artist (Henderson, 2004). There is also considerable anger about the fact that the music industry once said CDs would last forever. People feel they are paying twice now that they have to buy DVDs to replace CDs, and they wonder how long DVDs will last (Carlo, 2005).

There are some interesting parallels to the 1984 case in which the Motion Picture Association of America (MOA) sued to stop the sale of the now defunct SONY Betamax VCR. As it turned out the home entertainment industry was the salvation of the movie industry with the advent of VCRs, DVDs, and digital cable (Drexel, 2000; Batstone, 2004). So perhaps the solution is to look at this in a different light. The Electronic Frontier Foundation suggests a payment system similar to radio broadcasting. Since record companies already monitor what is sold and traded via the peer to peer networks internet, they can use that as a basis for calculating fees owed to artists, based on a pay per play model (Adrianson, 2003).

Like many areas, court rulings sometimes have unintended affects. A Norwegian man created descrambling software so he could view movies on a different machine than one on which the movie was intended to be viewed. In doing so, he intentionally circumvented the Decode Content Scrambling System. He also posted his code to a website so that others could use it. U.S. courts ruled that not only could a website in the U.S. not have that descrambling code which was deemed a violation of the law, but they also ruled that a website could not point (link) to another site which held the code. The court’s decision raises some significant concerns about linkages since this ruling also can suppress links to copyrighted material. Linking permits immediate access from one site to another. That was part of the intended design of the web and without such linkages, the power of the web is greatly diminished. This court ruling raises serious concerns about the future of linking and free speech (Spinello, 2004). An additional concern is that new government regulations might have a negative impact on new developing technologies (Adrianson, 2003).

Conclusion

Moral philosophers base theories of ethical behaviors on the human face; but, in Internet communication there is likely not that human face. This has left a conundrum in which we are shifting from what can be done on the Internet to what should be done and there is no overall philosophical approach. The Internet has flourished because of the freedom it allows without the controls from governments or powerful self-interest groups. Along with this democratic approach one can find all kinds of information considered morally wrong by many, e.g. racist hate speech, child pornography, promotion of terrorism and the incitement to commit violence. The Internet also involves an international perspective, for behavior illegal in one part of the world may be perfectly legal in another. This has left us with a sense of uncontrollability – who makes the rules and who enforces them. A big challenge is the problem of jurisdiction and the application of protections (Langford 2000).

This paper has shown that the Internet has dramatically changed our communications, social, and education interactions. We will continue to explore ethical issues surrounding intellectual property, downloading, copyright, and personal interactions on the web, because no clear methodology for fully addressing this has emerged. At the 2005 Special Libraries Association conference, Bill Buxton, a noted interface designer, keynoted the second day stating that the effects of technology are not neutral, and we must ensure that they are not detrimental. He also expressed that we must have a human-centered perspective on technology (Carolyne, 2005).

Perhaps most important is a proposal that we need to look at this with a whole new perspective, something along the lines that we are putting new wine into old bottles (Jennings, 2004) and how we use and manage technology needs to be considered carefully, perhaps with new models in mind. As Sydney J. Harris once said, "The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers."

References

Adrianson, A. (2003, October). Stopping music piracy without breaking the Internet. Consumers Research Magazine, 86 (10) , 10-15.

Batstone, D. (2004). Soujourners Magazine. Retrieved on August 1, 2005 from http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0401&article=040166.

Bostick, K. (2005, August 5) Disconnect? with so many teens online, one group wants them to shut down for week. RedNova. Retrieved on August 5, 2005 from http://www.rednova.com/news/technology/198008/
disconnect_with_so_many_teens_online_one_group_wants_them/.

Bugeja, M. (2004, October). Don’t let students “overlook” Internet plagiarism. Education Digest, 70 (2), 37-44.

Careaga, A. (2005, July 29). Wired for rudeness? Downloaded on August 13, 2005 from http://www.e-vangelism.com/2005/07/wired-for-rudeness.html

Carlo. ( 2005, August 11). Tech Dirt Blog. Retrieved on August 11 from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050811/1426247_F.shtml.

Carolyne. (2005 June 07). The information auditor. Downloaded on August 3, 2005 from http://www.theinformationauditor.com/blog/archives/2005/06/sla_2005_bill_b.html

Downes, S. (2004, September 28) Stephen’s Web. Retrieved on August 6, 2005 from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/find.cgi?string=site~Business%20Software%20Alliance.

Drexel University. Office of Judicial Affairs. (2000, November 1). Illegal downloading. Retrieved on August 11, 2005 from http://www.drexel.edu/judicial/illegaldownloads.htm.

Hansen, B. (2003, September 19). Combating plagiarism. The CQ Researcher Online, 13, 773-796. Retrieved August 8 2005, from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2003091900. Document ID: cqresrre2003091900.

Henderson, K. (2004, Fall). Deconstructing the RIAA’s litigious solution to online music piracy. Journal of Information Ethics, 13 (2), 24-37.

Internet Replaces Dad. (2005, August 11). SkyNews. Retrieved on August 11, 2005 from http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-13407864,00.html.

Jennings, M. (2004) A contrarians view: new wine in old bottles, new economy and old ethics-can it work? Social, ethical and policy implications. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University, 2004.

Jones, C. (2002, October, 22) Do internet filters work? CBC News. Retrieved on August 5, 2005 from http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/kids_online/.

Kandra, A. (2004, July). When ISPs think they know best. Consumer Watch. Retrieved on August 9, 2005, from http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,116012,00.asp.

Krantz. M. (1997, August 11). Censor’s sensibility, Time, 150, 488-9.

Kraus, J. (2002, Fall/Winter) Rethinking plagiarism: what our students are telling is when they cheat. Issues in Writing, 13 (1), 80-95.

Langford, D. (2000). Internet ethics. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Litman, J. (2003). Ethical disobedience. Ethics and Information Technology, 5 (4), 217-223.

Martin, D. (2005, January/February) Plagiarism and technology: a tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business , 80 (3), 149-52.

Merle. (no date). Rampant rudeness on the internet: what would 'Miss Manners' say?
Retrieved on August 3, 2005 from http://www.ideamarketers.com/library/article.cfm?articleid=14230&from=PROFILE.

Ornatowski, C. (2001, July 19). Ethics and the internet. Lore: Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture. Downloaded on August 7, 2005 from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/drwswebb/lore/2_2/ornat_internet.html

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2000, September 20). Press Release. Retrieved on August 10, 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/7/press_release.asp.

Phillips, M & Horton, V. (2000). Cybercheating: has morality evaporated in business education? The International Journal of Education Management, 14 (4), 150-155.

Scheuermann, L & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet research: electronic Networking applications and Policy, 7 (4), 269-273.

Sparks. G. (2005, July 26). Professor: students should put away technology to make friends. Ascribe. Retrieved on August 4, 2005 from http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2005/050725.T.Sparks.college.html.

Spinello, R. (2004, Fall). The DMCA, copyright law and the right to link. Journal of Information Ethics, 13 (2), 8-23.

Stahl, W. (1999). God and the Chip. Waterloo, CN: Wilfrid Aurier University Press.

Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weber, T. (2005, August 8). Reading, writing and file swapping. Downloaded on August 8, 2005 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050808.wsoft0908/BNStory/Technology/

Wood, G. (2004). Academic original sin: plagiarism, the internet and librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (3), 237-242.

you are: contents > Article 4 (top)