Ethics for the
Information Age
Chapter 3 - Networking
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Topics





Introduction
Email & Spam
The Spam Epidemic
Ethical Evaluations of Spamming
Making Direct Email Moral
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Topics (cont.)




Fighting Spam
Ethical Evaluations of MAPS
Proposed Solutions to
the Spam Epidemic
CAN SPAM Act of 2003
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Topics (cont.)





Control of the
World Wide Web
Ethical Perspectives
on Pornography
Censorship
Children and the Web
Breaking Trust on the Internet
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Introduction




The value of a PC increases
dramatically once it is networked
The value of the net is tremendous
due to the connectivity
Distributed computing (SETI project)
harnesses many lost CPU cycles
The greatest net impact is
communication
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Introduction

Two required conditions
– Network must support usage
– Users must act responsibly


How do we define ‘act responsibly’?
Can we apply ethical theories to
technology?
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Email & Spam



Email is broken into packets
Transmission is usually indirect
Top 10 most common subject lines in
2002
1. Protect your computer against viruses
for $9.95
2. Verification Department
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Email & Spam
–
Top 10 most common subject lines in 2002
3. Refinancing? Get a FREE quote on any
mortgage loan program
4. Printer Cartridges – Save up to 80% - Free
Shipping Offer
5. Miniature Remote Control Car. Great Gift!
6. $100 FREE, Please Play Now
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Email & Spam

Top 10 most common subject lines in
2002
7. Online Auction Marketing Secrets!
8. Important news Kuira
9. URGENT & CONFIDENTIAL.
10. GET A FREE PASS TO THOUSANDS OF
XXX SITES!
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
The Spam Epidemic
–
–
–
–
About 40% of all email in 2003
Cost to business is in the billions per
year
Low cost – about $500 - $2,000 per
email vs. almost $250,000 for postal
mail, not including the mailer
Opt-in lists
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
The Spam Epidemic
–
–
–
–
–
Dictionary attacks, check for unbounced
email
Net crawlers
Spoofing
AOL blocks over 1 billion messages per day
Hard to control as spammers change ID
easily and frequently
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Spamming
–
Kantian Evaluation
– Assume that I have a great idea for a
product or service
– I send unsolicited email to a large list
– Some recipients must pay by the
message
– I am treating recipients as a means to the
end of selling my product
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Spamming
–
Act Utilitarian Evaluation
– I send the email to 100 million people
– 1 in 100,000 may buy my product
– Assume that 90% of customers are
happy, 10% unhappy
– We have 99,990,000 unhappy people
– 9,000 happy customers
– 1 happy me
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Spamming
–
Rule Utilitarian Evaluation
– Use the same scenario as before
– If everyone were interested, I could not
fulfill the orders
– People may be inclined to drop or change
email to prevent spam
– Usefulness of email decreases
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Spamming

Social Contract Theory Evaluation
– We each have the right to free speech
– That right does not include the
requirement that the rest of us have to
listen
– If email is an invitation to correspond, the
sender must identify subject and author
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Making Direct Email Moral




Evaluating spam from four
perspectives each concludes it is
unethical
Can it be made ethical?
Use real address and subject
Send only to those who opt in
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Fighting Spam






Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
http://www.mail-abuse.com/
Uses a Realtime Blackhole List (RBL)
List of IP addresses that generate or
forward spam
Use their own guidelines to determine who
should be black listed
http://www.mailabuse.com/support/pdf/WP_MAPS_RBL_060
104.pdf
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Fighting Spam

Proper email guidelines
– Recipients must have asked to receive
email
– Must provide recipients with simple way
to be removed from the list (including at
least one non-email communication
method)
– Must remove invalid addresses in a timely
manner
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Fighting Spam

Proper email guidelines
– Must disclose how recipient addresses will
be used, including frequency and subject
of future mailings

When a violation is suspected
– MAPS contacts marketer (or ISP)
– Warns of potential blacklisting
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Fighting Spam

When a violation is suspected
– Evaluates response
– Makes decision

Those who have been Blockholed may
apply for removal
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Fighting Spam

Arguments against MAPS
– It prevents free speech
– If an entire ISP is blocked, innocent
individuals may be blocked
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of MAPS

Social Contract Theory
– MAPS presumes email should be of
“direct and equal benefit to the sender
and the recipient”
– Negates the argument of having a right
to have a message delivered
– Use of MAPS is by request (and payment)
only
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of MAPS

Utilitarian Evaluation
– ISP’s benefit - decrease in spam = less
network traffic and improved
performance
– ISP’s lose - useful email may be blocked
which reduces the value of the net
– Innocent senders may be harmed
– Must compare net benefit of senders to
net benefit of receivers
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of MAPS

Kantian Evaluation
– Goal of RBL is to improve ISP’s behavior
– Customer’s inconvenience may lead to
complaints to ISP and suppression of
spammers
– MAPS is treating customers as a means to
an end
– This violates the Categorical Imperative
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Proposed Solutions to
the Spam Epidemic

Require explicit subscriber opt in
– Increases recipient response rate
– Decreases total email volume
– Mandated by European Union



Require labeling of spam
Add a cost to every email sent
Ban unsolicited email
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
CAN SPAM Act of 2003


Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing (CAN SPAM)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&do
cid=f:s877enr.txt.pdf
Divides business email into three categories
– Transactional or relational


Message header, sender, organization and transmission
information must be correct
Must not disguise ID of the sending computer
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
CAN SPAM Act of 2003

Divides business email into three categories
– Consensual commercial email



Must inform recipient of option to be removed from list
Must provide internet based removal functional for at
least 30 days after the message was sent
Must contain postal address of sender
– Unsolicited email
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
CAN SPAM Act of 2003

Divides business email into three
categories
– Unsolicited email
Must contain “clear and conspicuous” notice
that it is an advertisement
 If sexually explicit, must contain notice in
subject line


Prohibits dictionary attacks
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
CAN SPAM Act of 2003

Penalties for violations
– $250 per message, $2 million max
– $6 million max for repeat offenders
– Criminal penalties and jail time up to five
years if used to further felonies or repeat
offenders
– Forfeiture of property or equipment used
in commission of crime
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
CAN SPAM Act of 2003






Critics call it the “You CAN SPAM Act”
Defines and permits unsolicited email
Does not prevent spam at all
Opt out not feasible as it confirms the email
address and address can be sold to other
spammers
Weaker than some existing state laws
Enforceable only in the US
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
World Wide Web Attributes



Decentralized, no control over content
URL’s are unique
Based on the Internet, therefore
accessible to all OS’s
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
World Wide Web Uses







Shopping, e-commerce
Formal education
Genealogy
Online gaming
Paying taxes
Gambling
Blogging
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Control of the
World Wide Web


No access in North Korea or Burma (as of
2003)
Saudi Arabia controls all access in country
– Blocks pornography, gambling, non-Islamic
religious organizations
– Women’s health and sexuality, gay rights, Middle
Eastern politics, ways to circumvent filtering
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Control of the
World Wide Web

People’s Republic of China
– Allows many ISP’s
– Each must agree to voluntarily block
politically or morally objectionable web
pages
– Also blocks BBC news, CNN, sites related
to Taiwan and Tibet
– Can affect Hong Kong which routes
through PRC
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Control of the
World Wide Web

Germany
– Forbids neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic

US
– Two attempts at legal restriction struck
down by US Supreme Court
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Control of the
World Wide Web

US
– Children’s Internet Protection Act upheld
– Argument transcript
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arg
uments/argument_transcripts/02-361.pdf
– Opinion
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions
/02pdf/02-361.pdf
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Perspectives
on Pornography




US government mandates filtering in
public libraries that receive federal
funding
Should the government restrict
access?
Pornography is hard to define
Book’s definition for this discussion
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Analyses Concluding
Pornography is Immoral

Kantianism
– Model(s) are used as means to an end
– Used as objects, not persons
– Violates Categorical Imperative
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Analyses Concluding
Pornography is Immoral

Utilitarianism
– Reduces the dignity of human life
– Portraying sexual abuse helps create an
environment in which true victims are less likely
to be dealt with sympathetically
– Imitators may be incited to rape, etc.
– Pornography is offensive to most people
– Diverts resources from more redeeming activities
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Analyses Concluding
Pornography is Moral


Presumes viewers and models are
consenting adults
Three benefits
– Individuals involved are making money
– Consumers derive pleasure
– Provides consumer with harmless outlet
for exploring sexual fantasies
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Commentary

Harms and benefits can be
contradictory
– Viewing pornography incites crime
– Provides harmless outlet


Benefits or harms are difficult to
ascertain or quantify
Should government aid parents in
protecting children?
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Censorship




Attempts to suppress or regulate public
access to offensive or harmful material
Usually exercised by government or
religious institutions
Printing press allowed wider dissemination
of material
Made more difficult by divergence of church
and state
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Direct Censorship

Three forms
– Government monopolization
State controls all media
 No private radio, TV or newspapers
 Made more difficult by computers and
internet

William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Direct Censorship

Three forms
– Prepublication review



Essential to keep secrets
Generally accepted for national security
Used by totalitarian governments to suppress dissent
– Licensing and registration



Used to apportion limited bandwidth
Radio, TV frequencies, channels
Allows de facto censorship
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Self-Censorship




May be used to maintain good
relationships with government
Reporters do not wish to alienate
sources
Voluntary rating systems
Agreement to not show mature
material during prime time
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Challenges Posed
by the Internet





Many to many communications
The Internet is dynamic, always
changing
Size of the Internet
The Internet is global
Identities are hard to verify
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Perspectives
on Censorship

Kantian View
– People must think for themselves
– Must not rely on others to tell them what
is permissible
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Perspectives
on Censorship

John Stuart Mill
– Four reasons for freedom of expression
None of us is infallible – mistakes may
silence the truth
 Majority opinion is not the whole truth, other
opinions must be heard
 A clash of ideas is necessary to determine the
truth
 Opinions must be tested to be verified

William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Perspectives
on Censorship

John Stuart Mill
– Principle of Harm
– “The only ground on which intervention is
justified is to prevent harm to others, the
individual’s own good is not a sufficient
condition.”
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Freedom of Expression

First Amendment history
– 1275 English law prohibiting speech
that could weaken loyalty to the
king
– Later encompassed seditions words
and words against many
government officials
– Late 1700’s – no prior restraint
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Freedom of Expression

First Amendment history
– Libel originally considered if
material was harmful, truth was not
a defense
– Guarantees freedom of speech
– Freedom of the press
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Freedom of Expression not
Absolute



First Amendment’s primary purpose is
to protect political speech
Speech is interpreted to be more than
mere words, all expression is
protected
Libel, slander, lies, perjury, false
advertising, personal abuse not
allowed
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, et
al.




1973 – George Carlin’s 7 dirty
words
2 PM, 30 October 1973, after
warning listeners, aired by WBAI,
New York
FCC received complaint
Issued order against station
operator
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, et
al.


Pacifica sued FCC for First
Amendment violation
1978 US Supreme Court ruled 5 –
4, no violation
– Can be received unintentionally
– Can be received by children
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Children and the Web

Web filters
– Installed on PC or ISP
– Checks URL against blacklist
– Or checks for key words
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Child Internet Protection Act




Requires libraries receiving federal
funds to install Internet filters
About 14 million people use public
Internet access
Adults can ask librarians to remove
filters
Government argued it is an extension
of existing standards
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Child Internet Protection Act



American Library Association and
ACLU argued filters may block
acceptable material
Asking for filter removal may be
embarrassing and disruptive
Act upheld by US Supreme Court
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of CIPA

Kantianism evaluation
– Individual reason should lead to
enlightenment of society
– Web filters may not be accurate
– Web sites do not consent to being
blocked
– Treats non-offensive, blocked pages as
means to an end
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of CIPA

Act Utilitarianism
– Not all children access Internet in
libraries, not all bad sites will be blocked
– Probable that CIPA will result in fewer
children being exposed to pornography
– May block legitimate sites, resulting in
less useful research – a harmful
consequence
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of CIPA

Act Utilitarianism
– Adults may be embarrassed to ask for
access
– Some blocked sites may be associated
with minority political views, the blocking
of which would be harmful
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of CIPA
– Social Contract Theory
Freedom of thought and expression is valued
 Private viewing of pornography is individual
and therefore outside of the social contract
 Blocking may inhibit free expression of ideas
 Does not treat adults who depend on library
access as free and equal citizens

William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Breaking Trust on the Internet

Identity theft
– Phony emails asking to update
information
– According to FBI, 2/3 of all cases of
identity theft begin with email solicitation
– 2002 – about 75,000 complaints
– About $40 million in fraud
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Chat Room Predators


Participation varies by country
Easy to impersonate young children
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Police Sting Operations


Is it right to trap pedophiles?
Direct effect of catching and convicting
– Perpetrator is deprived of freedom
– Public is safer
– Therefore, net benefit
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Police Sting Operations

Indirect effects
– Deterrence of others
– Makes chat room participants aware that
not everyone is genuine

Kantian Evaluation
– Police need to lie to trap suspect
– Therefore, sting operation is wrong
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Ethical Evaluations of
Police Sting Operations

Social Contract Theory
– People should be honest in chat rooms
– Pedophiles violate this rule
– Police may entrap otherwise honest
person
– Both involve lying and wrongdoing
– Therefore, it is wrong
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
False Information



Web pages and not necessarily correct
or honest
No review for correctness
No pre-publication review
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu
Questions & Discussion
William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu