Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property
Utilitarianism is based upon the principle that, when faced with a decision, every human should take the action that will ultimately benefit the most number of people, and cause the greatest happiness. Let us bring this principle into context within the realm of e-property. E-property can be ideas, publications, documents, and many other intangible yet original items. Tonight we will discuss several issues relating the use of utilitarian reasoning in an attempt to determine what is right and what is wrong. With us to reflect upon this touchy issue are San Diego State University Professor Sara Baase; leading contributor of Business Communications Review, Mike Banic; Geek.com reporter Amy Zunk; John Lettice, a technology writer for The Register; Internet relations expert Nick Dyer-Witheford; world renowned utilitarian John Stuart Mill; Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Corporation Bill Gates; author Joseph M. Kizza; and James Riley, a reporter for The Australian. Let us begin the show.
The Ethical Implications of File Sharing
Likely the most controversial topic regarding e-property is the sharing of files over peer to peer networks. Most web users have shared files at some point in their lives and been made happy by it; however, a real ethical dilemma occurs when files containing copyrighted materials are shared. Sara Baase is a university level professor and has created a compilation of social, legal, and ethical issues that concern the field of computers and the Internet.
Baase believes that file sharing is unethical and unprofessional: “Violation of copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the terms of license agreements is prohibited by law in most circumstances. Even when software is not so protected, such violations are contrary to professional behavior. Copies of software should be made only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be condoned” (A Gift of Fire, 448). Baase makes file sharing sound very upsetting to many people.
Mike Banic is a leading author for the Business Communications Review, and he asserts that, ethics, morality, and legality aside, “Peer-to-peer (P2P) networking has become one of the dominant forms of electronic communication around the world, and the use of P2P networks shows no signs of slowing down” (Banic, “Resolving The P2P Dilemma”, 63-65). In the same article, he even says that “recent studies show that 60 percent of all Internet traffic is P2P traffic.” Logically, if file sharing was not a beneficial practice, it would not comprise over half of all internet traffic.
Amy R. Zunk, a reporter for Geek.com, on the trial verdict against Morpheus, had this to say: “I do know a lot of people who use LimeWire and other file-sharing applications… They buy a copy of something for themselves and then diseminate [sic] a copy on the Internet as a way to keep information free, to keep vendors costs at bay, and to help out where they can (“Morpheus Found Guilty in File-Sharing Case”). Reaffirmed once again, large numbers of people benefit from file sharing. Zunk even makes it sound ethically right to share files, by saving people money and getting back at producers. Despite Baase’s reflection that file sharing is illegal, and that people are in fact hurt by it, utilitarianism backs up Banic and Zunk’s opinions that file sharing is a worldwide enterprise that benefits untold numbers of people by its happenings. Thus, Banic and Zunk will take this argument. Many more people benefit from file sharing, than are hurt.
The Openness of Windows Source Code
The most valuable item of e-property that Microsoft possesses is the code to its operating systems. Given the code, hackers and antivirus manufacturers alike could do a whole lot more in finding and either dealing with, or taking advantage of, exploits in the code. Operating systems like Linux have always had open sourced code with which developers and software engineers could express their creativity while producing a more functional product. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always kept its source code secret, and many people feel that Microsoft would benefit society better if it were to release its code.
Other posts on Utilitarianism and online activites:
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Should Spamming be Allowed?
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Introduction
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Ethical Implications of File Sharing
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Openness of Windows Source Code
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Reporting Assault and Theft of E-Property in Government Databases
Here with us to discuss the topic is John Lettice, a technology writer for The Register. John offers his viewpoint on the topic: “It'd be nice if escaping source code prompted Microsoft to take a more rational view of the whole issue, stop pretending it's secret and adopted the rival view that openness helps security, but we fear that'll take a few more leaks” (“MS Windows Source Code Escapes Onto Internet”). What John is saying is that society will benefit much more if Windows were to release its source code.
Nick Dyer-Witheford, an expert on Internet relations, provides some complimentary insight on this matter in his essay, “E-Capital and the Many Headed Hyrda”: “The outcome of this interaction between commercialization and free software is, however, uncertain. One obvious prospect is the corruption of the open source movement” (146). What Dyer-Witheford is saying is that if Windows were to open up its code, then so many vulnerabilities to outside forces, including malicious script and virus writers, would emerge. The potential risk to the hundreds of millions of Windows users worldwide is seemingly immeasurable. This would result in the crash and burn of the software, causing much more unhappiness than the emotional gain a few modders and hackers would receive. Hands down, Dyer-Witheford reserves the win in this argument, for the greatest amount of happiness that can be achieved in this situation is through Microsoft maintaining the secrecy of its most valuable piece of e-property.
Should Spamming be Allowed?
Spam can be defined generically as unwanted mail, in this case digitally, that is useless, bothersome, or offensive in some way to the majority of its receivers. It comes in the form of chain letters, monetary summons, and porno adds. Spam, however, may mean something to the person who created it. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech. Most people don’t want spam, however, which is where this right produces conflict. Essentially, people want to be heard, but do not want to listen to others.
John Stuart Mill is probably the most well known proponent of utilitarianism ever in history. “Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects…who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought…” (On Liberty and Utilitarianism, 39). What he is saying is that society is at a loss when free speech is restricted. Most people would agree that spam involves “independent train[s] of thought,” however a point is reached where enough is enough. I feel that nobody truly benefits from spam, people only think they benefit from spam sometimes until they realize they are participating in a scam.
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates joins us tonight to lament on his own spam problem: “Spam is worse than irritating. It is a drain on business productivity, an increasingly costly waste of time and resources that clogs corporate networks and distracts worker” (“Why I Hate Spam”). Gates also infers that “spam threatens to undo much of the good that e-mail has achieved.” Clearly, spam is a detriment to those people whose e-mail accounts fall victim to its cumbersome grasp. The number of people, it is safe to say, that benefit from spam is relatively low. Thus, humans should engage in not sending spam e-mail messages, because it benefits society much more when they are not sent, than when they are.
Other posts on Utilitarianism and online activites:
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Should Spamming be Allowed?
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Introduction
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Ethical Implications of File Sharing
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Openness of Windows Source Code
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Reporting Assault and Theft of E-Property in Government Databases
Reporting Assault and Theft of E-Property in Government Databases
Many people believe that all accounts of hacking, and/or theft of e-property, should be reported and stored in a publicly available government database, in an attempt to track malicious activity and ultimately reduce cyber crime. Having property stolen or assaulted only benefits the thief, at least until they are caught. The compliment of this verity, though, is what Joseph M. Kizza, the author of three computing impact books, would like to address.
Kizza: “Many of those who would have liked to report such crimes do not do so because of both economic and a psychological impact such news would have on both the shareholders’ confidence and the overall name of the company. Some companies are reluctant to report any form of computer attacks on their systems in fear that others, including shareholders, will perceive company management as weak with poor security policies” (Computer Network Security and Cyber Ethics, 57). Not only would reporting to a public database show harm that has already been inflicted upon a company, but further harm to that company, as well as the minds of those stakeholders involved, would ensue as a result.
James Riley, a reporter for The Australian, insists that a cyber-crime tracking database: “Would give authorities the best chance of collecting suitable evidence to present to a court” (http://the-other.wiretapped.net/security/info/papers/law-enforcement/australian-federal-police/afp-1998-mar-report-all-hacks.txt). So it appears that a government database would be useful, for it would help in nabbing the criminals who assault e-property, and many times end up stealing it. The number of stakeholders a company has is usually much larger than the number of employees a company has. So, by not reporting cyber intrusions or the theft of company documents as a result of such intrusions, thousands of people are spared the fear and hassle of evaluating the damage done to their company. This is contrary to the few people who would truly appreciate the value of knowing what has happened. The happiness factor in this argument gives the win to Joseph Kizza, for his take on the topic creates by far the most social utility, for the most people.
It looks as though we are out of time for tonight. It’s clear that utilitarianism yields all kinds of different results, given the context in which it is applied. Many things that might be considered immoral, such as widespread file sharing involving copyrighted materials, are justified with utilitarianism, while things like spam and Windows source code remain taboo and protected. The bottom line is, file sharing makes the majority of people happy, while spam and a crash and burn of Windows, can and would make the majority of people unhappy. The focus of utilitarianism lies on what makes the most people happy, most of the time. Theoretically, all humans should act this way, thereby creating the most social utility, and everyone is supposedly happy. Unfortunately, factors such as the law come in to play, which limits the maximum potential of utilitarianism. Thanks for watching, and have a great night.
Other posts on Utilitarianism and online activites:
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Should Spamming be Allowed?
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Introduction
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Ethical Implications of File Sharing
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Openness of Windows Source Code
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Reporting Assault and Theft of E-Property in Government Databases
Works Cited
Banic, Mike. "Resolving The P2P Dilemma." Business Communications Review Jan 2007: 63-65. ProQuest Computing. ProQuest. American U Lib. 11 Feb 2007
Dyer-Witheford, Nick. "E-Capital and the Many-Headed Hydra." Critical Perspectives on the Internet. Ed. Greg Elmer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002.
Gates, Bill. "Why I Hate Spam." Microsoft.com. 23 Jun 2003. Microsoft Corp. 11 Feb 2007
Graham, Gordon. The Internet: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Kizza, Joseph Migga. Computer Network Security and Cyber Ethics. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2002.
Lettice, John. "MS Windows Source Code Escapes Onto Internet." The Register 13 Feb 2004. 11 Feb 2007
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Utilitarianism. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.
Riley, James. "Users told: Report all hacks." Wiretapped. 19 Nov 2000. 11 Feb 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment