Please read pgs 67-95 in
Ethics for the Information Age
.
Concerning your ethical framework, please answer the following two questions:
1) When you have to address moral questions, please rank order from 1 (Highest) to 5 (Lowest) the five ethical frameworks (eg Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, & Virtue Ethics) in terms of their meaning and usefulness to you. What is the rationale for your rank ordering?
2) In addition to your preferred ethical framework(s) above, what other factors do you generally consider when addressing moral questions?
please answer 2 separate questions
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Editorial Director, ECS Marcia Horton
Acquisitions Editor Matt Goldstein
Program Manager Kayla Smith-Tarbox
Director of Marketing Christy Lesko
Marketing Manager Yezan Alayan
Marketing Assistant Jon Bryant
Director of Production Erin Gregg
Senior Managing Editor Scott Disanno
Senior Project Manager Marilyn Lloyd
Manufacturing Buyer Linda Sager
Cover Designer Joyce Cosentino Wells
Text Designer Sandra Rigney
Manager, Text Permissions Tim Nicholls
Text Permission Project Manager William Opaluch
Cover Image © iStock/Getty images
Media Project Manager Renata Butera
Full-Service Project Management Cypress Graphics, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Printer/Binder R. R. Donnelley/Harrisonburg
Text Fonts Minion and Nofret
Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission,
appear on the appropriate page in the text.
Copyright © 2015, 2013, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Addison-Wesley. All rights
reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright,
and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction,
storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work,
please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake
Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290.
Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed
as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a
trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Quinn, Michael J.
Ethics for the information age / Michael J. Quinn, Seattle University. — Sixth edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-374162-9 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-13-374162-1 (alk. paper)
1. Electronic data processing—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Computers and civilization.
I. Title.
QA76.9.M65Q56 2014
303.48′34—dc23 2013049611
18 17 16 15 14—RRD—10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 10: 0-13-374162-1
ISBN 13: 978-0-13-374162-9
Brief Contents
Preface xxi
1 Catalysts for Change 1
An Interview with Dalton Conley 47
2 Introduction to Ethics 49
An Interview with James Moor 105
3 Networked Communications 109
An Interview with Michael Liebhold 159
4 Intellectual Property 161
An Interview with June Besek 223
5 Information Privacy 227
An Interview with Michael Zimmer 265
6 Privacy and the Government 269
An Interview with Jerry Berman 315
7 Computer and Network Security 319
An Interview with Matt Bishop 357
8 Computer Reliability 361
An Interview with Avi Rubin 405
9 Professional Ethics 407
An Interview with Paul Axtell 447
10 Work and Wealth 451
An Interview with Martin Ford 491
Appendix A: Plagiarism 495
Index 499
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Preface xxi
1 Catalysts for Change 1
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Milestones in Computing 5
1.2.1 Aids to Manual Calculating 5
1.2.2 Mechanical Calculators 6
1.2.3 Cash Register 8
1.2.4 Punched-Card Tabulation 9
1.2.5 Precursors of Commercial Computers 11
1.2.6 First Commercial Computers 13
1.2.7 Programming Languages and Time-Sharing 14
1.2.8 Transistor and Integrated Circuit 15
1.2.9 IBM System/360 17
1.2.10 Microprocessor 17
1.2.11 Personal Computer 18
1.3 Milestones in Networking 21
1.3.1 Electricity and Electromagnetism 21
1.3.2 Telegraph 23
1.3.3 Telephone 24
1.3.4 Typewriter and Teletype 25
1.3.5 Radio 25
1.3.6 Television 26
1.3.7 Remote Computing 28
1.3.8 ARPANET 28
1.3.9 Email 29
1.3.10 Internet 29
1.3.11 NSFNET 31
1.3.12 Broadband 31
1.3.13 Wireless Networks 31
viii Contents
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval 32
1.4.1 Greek Alphabet 32
1.4.2 Codex and Paper 32
1.4.3 Gutenberg’s Printing Press 33
1.4.4 Newspapers 33
1.4.5 Hypertext 33
1.4.6 Graphical User Interface 34
1.4.7 Single-Computer Hypertext Systems 36
1.4.8 Networked Hypertext: World Wide Web 36
1.4.9 Search Engines 37
1.5 Information Technology Issues 38
Summary 39
Review Questions 41
Discussion Questions 42
In-Class Exercises 43
Further Reading and Viewing 44
References 44
An Interview with Dalton Conley 47
2 Introduction to Ethics 49
2.1 Introduction 49
2.1.1 Defining Terms 50
2.1.2 Four Scenarios 52
2.1.3 Overview of Ethical Theories 55
2.2 Subjective Relativism 56
2.2.1 The Case for Subjective Relativism 56
2.2.2 The Case against Subjective Relativism 57
2.3 Cultural Relativism 58
2.3.1 The Case for Cultural Relativism 59
2.3.2 The Case against Cultural Relativism 60
2.4 Divine Command Theory 62
2.4.1 The Case for the Divine Command Theory 62
2.4.2 The Case against the Divine Command Theory 63
2.5 Ethical Egoism 65
2.5.1 The Case for Ethical Egoism 65
2.5.2 The Case against Ethical Egoism 66
2.6 Kantianism 67
2.6.1 Good Will and the Categorical Imperative 68
2.6.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Kantianism 70
Contents ix
2.6.3 The Case for Kantianism 71
2.6.4 The Case against Kantianism 71
2.7 Act Utilitarianism 72
2.7.1 Principle of Utility 73
2.7.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Act Utilitarianism 74
2.7.3 The Case for Act Utilitarianism 75
2.7.4 The Case against Act Utilitarianism 76
2.8 Rule Utilitarianism 78
2.8.1 Basis of Rule Utilitarianism 78
2.8.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Rule Utilitarianism 78
2.8.3 The Case for Rule Utilitarianism 79
2.8.4 The Case against Utilitarianism in General 80
2.9 Social Contract Theory 81
2.9.1 The Social Contract 81
2.9.2 Rawls’s Theory of Justice 83
2.9.3 Evaluating a Scenario Using Social Contract Theory 85
2.9.4 The Case for Social Contract Theory 86
2.9.5 The Case against Social Contract Theory 87
2.10 Virtue Ethics 89
2.10.1 Virtues and Vices 89
2.10.2 Making a Decision Using Virtue Ethics 91
2.10.3 The Case for Virtue Ethics 92
2.10.4 The Case against Virtue Ethics 93
2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories 94
2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law 96
2.12.1 Social Contract Theory Perspective 96
2.12.2 Kantian Perspective 96
2.12.3 Rule Utilitarian Perspective 97
2.12.4 Act Utilitarian Perspective 97
2.12.5 Conclusion 98
Summary 98
Review Questions 99
Discussion Questions 101
In-Class Exercises 102
Further Reading and Viewing 103
References 103
An Interview with James Moor 105
x Contents
3 Networked Communications 109
3.1 Introduction 109
3.2 Spam 111
3.2.1 The Spam Epidemic 112
3.2.2 Need for Social-Technical Solutions 113
3.2.3 Case Study: Ann the Acme Accountant 114
3.3 Internet Interactions 117
3.3.1 The World Wide Web 117
3.3.2 The Rise of the App 117
3.3.3 How We Use the Internet 117
3.4 Text Messaging 120
3.4.1 Transforming Lives in Developing Countries 120
3.4.2 Twitter 121
3.4.3 Business Promotion 121
3.4.4 Political Activism 121
3.5 Censorship 122
3.5.1 Direct Censorship 122
3.5.2 Self-Censorship 123
3.5.3 Challenges Posed by the Internet 124
3.5.4 Government Filtering and Surveillance of Internet Content 124
3.5.5 Ethical Perspectives on Censorship 125
3.6 Freedom of Expression 127
3.6.1 History 127
3.6.2 Freedom of Expression Not an Absolute Right 128
3.6.3 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 129
3.6.4 Case Study: Kate’s Blog 130
3.7 Children and Inappropriate Content 132
3.7.1 Web Filters 132
3.7.2 Child Internet Protection Act 133
3.7.3 Ethical Evaluations of CIPA 134
3.7.4 Sexting 135
3.8 Breaking Trust 137
3.8.1 Identity Theft 137
3.8.2 Chat-Room Predators 138
3.8.3 Ethical Evaluations of Police Sting Operations 139
3.8.4 False Information 141
3.8.5 Cyberbullying 142
3.9 Internet Addiction 143
3.9.1 Is Internet Addiction Real? 143
3.9.2 Contributing Factors 145
Contents xi
3.9.3 Ethical Evaluation of Internet Addiction 146
Summary 147
Review Questions 148
Discussion Questions 149
In-Class Exercises 151
Further Reading and Viewing 152
References 153
An Interview with Michael Liebhold 159
4 Intellectual Property 161
4.1 Introduction 161
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights 163
4.2.1 Property Rights 163
4.2.2 Extending the Argument to Intellectual Property 164
4.2.3 Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection 167
4.2.4 Limits to Intellectual Property Protection 167
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property 169
4.3.1 Trade Secrets 169
4.3.2 Trademarks and Service Marks 170
4.3.3 Patents 170
4.3.4 Copyrights 172
4.4 Fair Use 176
4.4.1 Sony v. Universal City Studios 177
4.4.2 Digital Recording Technology 179
4.4.3 Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 179
4.4.4 RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia 179
4.4.5 Kelly v. Arriba Soft 180
4.4.6 Google Books 181
4.5 New Restrictions on Use 182
4.5.1 Digital Millennium Copyright Act 183
4.5.2 Digital Rights Management 184
4.5.3 Secure Digital Music Initiative 184
4.5.4 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rootkit 184
4.5.5 Encrypting DVDs 185
4.5.6 Foiling HD-DVD Encryption 186
4.5.7 Criticisms of Digital Rights Management 186
4.5.8 Online Music Stores Drop Digital Rights Management 187
4.5.9 Microsoft Xbox One 187
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers 188
4.6.1 Napster 189
xii Contents
4.6.2 FastTrack 189
4.6.3 BitTorrent 190
4.6.4 RIAA Lawsuits 191
4.6.5 MGM v. Grokster 192
4.6.6 Legal Action against the Pirate Bay 194
4.6.7 PRO-IP Act 195
4.6.8 Megaupload Shutdown 195
4.6.9 Legal Music Services on the Internet 195
4.7 Protections for Software 196
4.7.1 Software Copyrights 196
4.7.2 Violations of Software Copyrights 196
4.7.3 Safe Software Development 197
4.7.4 Software Patents 198
4.8 Open-Source Software 200
4.8.1 Consequences of Proprietary Software 200
4.8.2 “Open Source” Definition 201
4.8.3 Beneficial Consequences of Open-Source Software 202
4.8.4 Examples of Open-Source Software 202
4.8.5 The GNU Project and Linux 203
4.8.6 Impact of Open-Source Software 204
4.8.7 Critique of the Open-Source Software Movement 204
4.9 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection for Software 205
4.9.1 Rights-Based Analysis 205
4.9.2 Utilitarian Analysis 206
4.9.3 Conclusion 207
4.10 Creative Commons 208
Summary 210
Review Questions 213
Discussion Questions 214
In-Class Exercises 214
Further Reading and Viewing 215
References 216
An Interview with June Besek 223
5 Information Privacy 227
5.1 Introduction 227
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 229
5.2.1 Defining Privacy 229
5.2.2 Harms and Benefits of Privacy 230
5.2.3 Is There a Natural Right to Privacy? 232
Contents xiii
5.2.4 Privacy and Trust 236
5.2.5 Case Study: The New Parents 236
5.3 Information Disclosures 238
5.3.1 Facebook Tags 240
5.3.2 Enhanced 911 Services 240
5.3.3 Rewards or Loyalty Programs 241
5.3.4 Body Scanners 241
5.3.5 RFID Tags 242
5.3.6 Implanted Chips 243
5.3.7 OnStar 244
5.3.8 Automobile “Black Boxes” 244
5.3.9 Medical Records 245
5.3.10 Digital Video Recorders 245
5.3.11 Cookies and Flash Cookies 245
5.4 Data Mining 246
5.4.1 Data Mining Defined 246
5.4.2 Opt-In versus Opt-Out Policies 247
5.4.3 Examples of Data Mining 248
5.4.4 Social Network Analysis 251
5.5 Examples of Consumer Backlash 252
5.5.1 Marketplace: Households 252
5.5.2 Facebook Beacon 253
5.5.3 Netflix Prize 253
5.5.4 Malls Track Shoppers’ Cell Phones 254
5.5.5 iPhone Apps Uploading Address Books 254
5.5.6 Instagram’s Proposed Change to Terms of Service 255
Summary 255
Review Questions 256
Discussion Questions 257
In-Class Exercises 259
Further Reading and Viewing 260
References 261
An Interview with Michael Zimmer 265
6 Privacy and the Government 269
6.1 Introduction 269
6.2 US Legislation Restricting Information Collection 271
6.2.1 Employee Polygraph Protection Act 271
6.2.2 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 271
6.2.3 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 271
xiv Contents
6.3 Information Collection by the Government 272
6.3.1 Census Records 272
6.3.2 Internal Revenue Service Records 273
6.3.3 FBI National Crime Information Center 2000 274
6.3.4 OneDOJ Database 275
6.3.5 Closed-Circuit Television Cameras 276
6.3.6 Police Drones 277
6.4 Covert Government Surveillance 278
6.4.1 Wiretaps and Bugs 278
6.4.2 Operation Shamrock 281
6.4.3 Carnivore Surveillance System 282
6.4.4 Covert Activities after 9/11 282
6.5 US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping 283
6.5.1 Title III 283
6.5.2 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 284
6.5.3 Electronic Communications Privacy Act 284
6.5.4 Stored Communications Act 285
6.5.5 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 285
6.6 USA PATRIOT Act 286
6.6.1 Provisions of the Patriot Act 286
6.6.2 National Security Letters 287
6.6.3 Responses to the Patriot Act 288
6.6.4 Successes and Failures 289
6.6.5 Patriot Act Renewal 290
6.6.6 Long-Standing NSA Access to Telephone Records 290
6.7 Regulation of Public and Private Databases 291
6.7.1 Code of Fair Information Practices 291
6.7.2 Privacy Act of 1974 293
6.7.3 Fair Credit Reporting Act 294
6.7.4 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act 294
6.7.5 Financial Services Modernization Act 294
6.8 Data Mining by the Government 295
6.8.1 Internal Revenue Service Audits 295
6.8.2 Syndromic Surveillance Systems 295
6.8.3 Telecommunications Records Database 295
6.8.4 Predictive Policing 296
6.9 National Identification Card 296
6.9.1 History and Role of the Social Security Number 296
6.9.2 Debate over a National ID Card 297
6.9.3 The REAL ID Act 299
Contents xv
6.10 Information Dissemination 300
6.10.1 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act 300
6.10.2 Video Privacy Protection Act 300
6.10.3 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 301
6.10.4 Freedom of Information Act 301
6.10.5 Toll Booth Records Used in Court 302
6.11 Invasion 302
6.11.1 Telemarketing 303
6.11.2 Loud Television Commercials 303
6.11.3 Requiring Identification for Pseudoephedrine Purchases 303
6.11.4 Advanced Imaging Technology Scanners 304
Summary 305
Review Questions 306
Discussion Questions 308
In-Class Exercises 309
Further Reading and Viewing 309
References 309
An Interview with Jerry Berman 315
7 Computer and Network Security 319
7.1 Introduction 319
7.2 Hacking 320
7.2.1 Hackers, Past and Present 320
7.2.2 Penalties for Hacking 321
7.2.3 Selected Hacking Incidents 322
7.2.4 Case Study: Firesheep 323
7.3 Malware 325
7.3.1 Viruses 326
7.3.2 The Internet Worm 328
7.3.3 Sasser 332
7.3.4 Instant Messaging Worms 333
7.3.5 Conficker 333
7.3.6 Cross-Site Scripting 333
7.3.7 Drive-By Downloads 333
7.3.8 Trojan Horses and Backdoor Trojans 334
7.3.9 Rootkits 334
7.3.10 Spyware and Adware 334
7.3.11 Bots and Botnets 334
7.3.12 Defensive Measures 335
xvi Contents
7.4 Cyber Crime and Cyber Attacks 335
7.4.1 Phishing and Spear Phishing 336
7.4.2 SQL Injection 336
7.4.3 Denial-of-Service and Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks 336
7.4.4 Cyber Crime 337
7.4.5 Politically Motivated Cyber Attacks 339
7.5 Online Voting 343
7.5.1 Motivation for Online Voting 343
7.5.2 Proposals 344
7.5.3 Ethical Evaluation 345
Summary 348
Review Questions 348
Discussion Questions 349
In-Class Exercises 351
Further Reading and Viewing 352
References 352
An Interview with Matt Bishop 357
8 Computer Reliability 361
8.1 Introduction 361
8.2 Data Entry or Data Retrieval Errors 362
8.2.1 Disenfranchised Voters 362
8.2.2 False Arrests 362
8.2.3 Utilitarian Analysis: Accuracy of NCIC Records 363
8.3 Software and Billing Errors 364
8.3.1 Errors Leading to System Malfunctions 364
8.3.2 Errors Leading to System Failures 365
8.3.3 Analysis: E-retailer Posts Wrong Price, Refuses to Deliver 367
8.4 Notable Software System Failures 367
8.4.1 Patriot Missile 368
8.4.2 Ariane 5 369
8.4.3 AT&T Long-Distance Network 370
8.4.4 Robot Missions to Mars 371
8.4.5 Denver International Airport 372
8.4.6 Tokyo Stock Exchange 373
8.4.7 Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines 374
8.5 Therac-25 377
8.5.1 Genesis of the Therac-25 377
8.5.2 Chronology of Accidents and AECL Responses 378
8.5.3 Software Errors 380
8.5.4 Postmortem 382
Contents xvii
8.5.5 Moral Responsibility of the Therac-25 Team 383
8.5.6 Postscript 384
8.6 Computer Simulations 384
8.6.1 Uses of Simulation 384
8.6.2 Validating Simulations 386
8.7 Software Engineering 387
8.7.1 Specification 388
8.7.2 Development 388
8.7.3 Validation 389
8.7.4 Evolution 390
8.7.5 Software Quality Is Improving 390
8.8 Software Warranties and Vendor Liability 391
8.8.1 Shrink-wrap Warranties 391
8.8.2 Are Software Warranties Enforceable? 392
8.8.3 Should Software Be Considered a Product? 395
8.8.4 Case Study: Incredible Bulk 395
Summary 396
Review Questions 398
Discussion Questions 399
In-Class Exercises 400
Further Reading and Viewing 401
References 401
An Interview with Avi Rubin 405
9 Professional Ethics 407
9.1 Introduction 407
9.2 How Well Developed Are the Computing Professions? 409
9.2.1 Characteristics of a Fully Developed Profession 409
9.2.2 Case Study: Certified Public Accountants 410
9.2.3 How Do Computer-Related Careers Stack Up? 411
9.3 Software Engineering Code of Ethics 413
9.4 Analysis of the Code 421
9.4.1 Preamble 421
9.4.2 Alternative List of Fundamental Principles 422
9.5 Case Studies 423
9.5.1 Software Recommendation 424
9.5.2 Child Pornography 425
9.5.3 Antiworm 426
9.5.4 Consulting Opportunity 428
xviii Contents
9.6 Whistle-Blowing 430
9.6.1 Morton Thiokol/NASA 431
9.6.2 Hughes Aircraft 432
9.6.3 US Legislation Related to Whistle-Blowing 434
9.6.4 Morality of Whistle-Blowing 435
Summary 438
Review Questions 439
Discussion Questions 440
In-Class Exercises 442
Further Reading and Viewing 443
References 443
An Interview with Paul Axtell 447
10 Work and Wealth 451
10.1 Introduction 451
10.2 Automation and Employment 452
10.2.1 Automation and Job Destruction 453
10.2.2 Automation and Job Creation 455
10.2.3 Effects of Increase in Productivity 456
10.2.4 Rise of the Robots? 458
10.3 Workplace Changes 461
10.3.1 Organizational Changes 462
10.3.2 Telework 463
10.3.3 Temporary Work 465
10.3.4 Monitoring 465
10.3.5 Multinational Teams 466
10.4 Globalization 468
10.4.1 Arguments for Globalization 468
10.4.2 Arguments against Globalization 469
10.4.3 Dot-Com Bust Increases IT Sector Unemployment 470
10.4.4 Foreign Workers in the American IT Industry 470
10.4.5 Foreign Competition 471
10.5 The Digital Divide 472
10.5.1 Global Divide 473
10.5.2 Social Divide 474
10.5.3 Models of Technological Diffusion 474
10.5.4 Critiques of the Digital Divide 476
10.5.5 Massive Open Online Courses 477
10.5.6 Net Neutrality 478
Contents xix
10.6 The “Winner-Take-All Society” 479
10.6.1 Harmful Effects of Winner-Take-All 480
10.6.2 Reducing Winner-Take-All Effects 482
Summary 482
Review Questions 484
Discussion Questions 484
In-Class Exercises 486
Further Reading and Viewing 487
References 487
An Interview with Martin Ford 491
Appendix A: Plagiarism 495
Consequences of Plagiarism 495
Types of Plagiarism 495
Guidelines for Citing Sources 496
How to Avoid Plagiarism 496
Misuse of Sources 496
Additional Information 497
References 497
Index 499
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Computers and high-speed communication networks are transforming our world.
These technologies have brought us many benefits, but they have also raised many social
and ethical concerns. My view is that we ought to approach every new technology in a
thoughtful manner, considering not just its short-term benefits, but also how its long-
term use will affect our lives. A thoughtful response to information technology requires
a basic understanding of its history, an awareness of current information-technology-
related issues, and a familiarity with ethics. I have written Ethics for the Information Age
with these ends in mind.
Ethics for the Information Age is suitable for college students at all levels. The only
prerequisite is some experience using computers and the Internet. The book is appro-
priate for a stand-alone “computers and society” or “computer ethics” course offered by
a computer science, business, or philosophy department. It can also be used as a supple-
mental textbook in a technical course that devotes some time to social and ethical issues
related to computing.
As students discuss controversial issues related to information technology, they have
the opportunity to learn from one other and improve their critical thinking skills. The
provocative questions raised at the end of every chapter, together with dozens of in-class
exercises, provide many opportunities for students to express their viewpoints. My hope
is that they will get better at evaluating complex issues and defending their conclusions
with facts, sound values, and rational arguments.
WHAT’S NEW IN THE SIXTH EDITION
The most significant change in the sixth edition is the new emphasis on virtue ethics. I
have written a completely new section on virtue ethics that appears in Chapter 2, replac-
ing the description of virtue ethics that formerly appeared in the chapter on professional
ethics. In addition, I have included analyses from the perspective of virtue ethics to the
case studies appearing in Chapters 3, 5, and 7.
To increase the relevance and value of the “Further Reading and Viewing” sections,
I have eliminated the references to scholarly tomes. They have been replaced by lists of
recent magazine and newspaper articles, television interviews, documentaries, and other
videos available on the Internet. Most of the videos are only a few minutes long and can
fuel interesting classroom discussions.
In response to a suggestion from one of the reviewers, I have added a table to Chap-
ter 7 that provides students with practical tips about how to choose good passwords.
xxii Preface
The sixth edition references many important recent developments; among them are:
. Edward Snowden’s revelations of longstanding National Security Agency access to
telephone metadata, email messages, and live communications;
. the privacy implications of Twitter, Foursquare, Instagram, and other apps gather-
ing information from address books stored on smartphones;
. the controversy surrounding Microsoft’s proposal for digital rights management on
the Xbox One;
. the activities of the “hacktivist” group Anonymous;
. benefits and harms of tracking the movement of people through their smartphones;
. the debate over the use of drones by police departments;
. retailers using information collected from online sales to differentiate between cus-
tomers and offer different prices to different people;
. retailers using targeted direct marketing to win new customers;
. the use of “crowdsourcing” by companies to improve products and services;
. coverage of how cell phones are changing lives in developing countries;
. predictive policing based on data mining;
. massive open online courses (MOOCs) and implications for students from different
socio-economic groups; and
. the “Internet of Things”—Internet-connected devices that can be controlled re-
motely.
Finally, I have updated facts and figures throughout the book.
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
The book is divided into ten chapters. Chapter 1 has three objectives: to get the reader
thinking about the process of technological change; to present a brief history of com-
puting, networking, and information storage and retrieval; and to provide examples of
moral problems brought about by the introduction of information technology.
Chapter 2 is an introduction to ethics. It presents nine different theories of ethical
decision-making, weighing the pros and cons of each one. Five of these theories—
Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue
ethics—are deemed the most appropriate “tools” for analyzing moral problems in the
remaining chapters.
Chapters 3–10 discuss a wide variety of issues related to the introduction of infor-
mation technology into society. I think of these chapters as forming concentric rings
around a particular computer user.
Chapter 3 is the innermost ring, dealing with what can happen when people com-
municate over the Internet using the Web, email, and Twitter. Issues such as the increase
in spam, easy access to pornography, cyberbullying, and Internet addiction raise impor-
tant questions related to quality of life, free speech, and censorship.
Preface xxiii
The next ring, Chapter 4, deals with the creation and exchange of intellectual prop-
erty. It discusses intellectual property rights, legal safeguards for intellectual property,
the definition of fair use, digital rights management, abuses of peer-to-peer networks,
the rise of the open-source movement, and the legitimacy of intellectual property pro-
tection for software.
Chapter 5 focuses on information privacy. What is privacy exactly? Is there a natural
right to privacy? How do others learn so much about us? The chapter describes the
electronic trail that people leave behind when they use a cell phone, make credit card
purchases, open a bank account, go to a physician, or apply for a loan.
Chapter 6 focuses on privacy and the US government. Using Daniel Solove’s taxon-
omy of privacy as our organizing principle, we look at how the government has steered
between the competing interests of personal privacy and public safety. We consider US
legislation to restrict information collection and government surveillance; government
regulation of private databases and abuses of large government databases; legislation to
reduce the dissemination of information and legislation that has had the opposite effect;
and finally government actions to prevent the invasion of privacy as well as invasive gov-
ernment actions. Along the way, we discuss the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act
and the debate over the REAL ID Act to establish a de facto national identification card.
Chapter 7 focuses on the vulnerabilities of networked computers. A case study
focuses on the release of the Firesheep extension to the Firefox Web browser. A section
on malware discusses rootkits, spyware, cross-site scripting, and drive-by downloads.
We discuss common Internet-based attacks—phishing, spear-phishing, SQL injection,
denial-of-service attacks, and distributed denial-of-service attacks—and how they are
used for cyber crime, cyber espionage, and cyber attacks. We conclude with a discussion
of the risks associated with online voting.
Computerized system failures have led to lost business, the destruction of property,
human suffering, and even death. Chapter 8 describes some notable software system
failures, including the story of the Therac-25 radiation therapy system. It also discusses
the reliability of computer simulations, the emergence of software engineering as a
distinct discipline, and the validity of software warranties.
Chapter 9 is particularly relevant for those readers who plan to take jobs in the
computer industry. The chapter presents a professional code related to computing, the
Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, followed by an analysis
of the code. Several case studies illustrate how to use the Software Engineering Code
of Ethics and Professional Practice to evaluate moral problems related to the use of
computers. The chapter concludes with an ethical evaluation of whistle-blowing, an
extreme example of organizational dissent.
Chapter 10 raises a wide variety of issues related to how information technology
has impacted work and wealth. Topics include workplace monitoring, telecommuting,
and globalization. Does automation increase unemployment? Is there a “digital divide”
separating society into “haves” and “have nots”? Is information technology widening the
gap between rich and poor? These are just a few of the important questions the chapter
addresses.
xxiv Preface
Unit Name Chapter(s)
SP1 History of computing 1
SP2 Social context of computing 1, 3, 10
SP3 Methods and tools of analysis 2–10
SP4 Professional and ethical responsibilities 9
SP5 Risks and liabilities of computer-based systems 8
SP6 Intellectual property 4
SP7 Privacy and civil liberties 5, 6
SP8 Computer crime 3, 7
SP9 Economic issues in computing 10
SP10 Philosophical frameworks 2
Table 1 Mapping between the units of the Social and Professional Issues course in
Computing Curricula 2001 and the chapters of this book.
NOTE TO INSTRUCTORS
In December 2001, a joint task force of the IEEE Computer Society and the Associ-
ation for Computing Machinery released the final draft of Computing Curricula 2001
(www.computer.org/education/cc2001/final). The report recommends that every un-
dergraduate computer science degree program incorporate 40 hours of instruction re-
lated to social and professional issues related to computing. For those departments that
choose to dedicate an entire course to these issues, the report provides a model syllabus
for CS 280T, Social and Professional Issues. Ethics for the Information Age covers all of
the major topics listed in the syllabus. Table 1 shows the mapping between the 10 units
of CS 280T and the chapters of this book.
The organization of the book makes it easy to adapt to your particular needs. If
your syllabus does not include the history of information technology, you can skip the
middle three sections of Chapter 1 and still expose your students to examples motivating
the formal study of ethics in Chapter 2. After Chapter 2, you may cover the remaining
chapters in any order you choose, because Chapters 3–10 do not depend on one other.
Many departments choose to incorporate discussions of social and ethical issues
throughout the undergraduate curriculum. The independence of Chapters 3–10 makes
it convenient to use Ethics for the Information Age as a supplementary textbook. You can
simply assign readings from the chapters most closely related to the course topic.
SUPPLEMENTS
The following supplements are available to qualified instructors on Pearson’s Instructor
Resource Center. Please contact your local Pearson sales representative or visit www
.pearsonhighered.com/educator to access this material.
. An instructor’s manual provides tips for teaching a course in computer ethics. It
also contains answers to all of the review questions.
www.computer.org/education/cc2001/final
www.pearsonhighered.com/educator
www.pearsonhighered.com/educator
Preface xxv
. A test bank contains more than 300 multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and essay
questions that you can use for quizzes, midterms, and final examinations.
. A set of PowerPoint lecture slides outlines the material covered in every chapter.
FEEDBACK
Ethics for the Information Age cites hundreds of sources and includes dozens of ethical
analyses. Despite my best efforts and those of many reviewers, the book is bound to
contain errors. I appreciate getting comments (both positive and negative), corrections,
and suggestions from readers. Please send them to quinnm@seattleu.edu or Michael J.
Quinn, Seattle University, College of Science and Engineering, 901 12th Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98122.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I appreciate the continuing support of a great publications team, beginning with editor
Matt Goldstein, and including Kayla Tarbox, Marilyn Lloyd, Kathy Ringrose, Craig
Jones, Paul Anagnostopoulos, Jacqui Scarlott, Jennifer McClain, Richard Camp, Laurel
Muller, and Ted Laux. I thank them and everyone else who helped produce this edition.
A superb group of reviewers provided me with many helpful suggestions regarding
new material to incorporate into the sixth edition. I thank: Donna Maria D’Ambrosio,
University of South Florida; Dawit Demissie, The Sage Colleges; J.C. Diaz, The Univer-
sity of Tulsa; Fred Geldon, George Mason University; Richard E. Gordon, University of
Delaware; Michael Gourley, University of Central Oklahoma; Robert Greene, University
of Wisconsin–Eau Claire; Gurdeep Hura, University of Maryland Eastern Shore; Evelyn
Lulis, DePaul University; Aparna Mahadev, Worcester State University; Daniel Palmer,
Kent State University; Jason Rogers, George Mason University; and Scott Vitz, Indiana
University–Purdue University Fort Wayne.
I am grateful to philosophy professor Maria Carl of Seattle University, who reviewed
the new material on virtue ethics and provided me with valuable and constructive feed-
back.
I thank all who participated in the creation of the first five editions or provided
useful suggestions for the sixth edition: Paul Anagnostopoulos, Valerie Anctil, Beth
Anderson, Bob Baddeley, George Beekman, Brian Breck, Sherry Clark, Thomas Diet-
terich, Roger Eastman, Beverly Fusfield, Robert Greene, Peter Harris, Susan Hartman,
Michael Hirsch, Michael Johnson, Marilyn Lloyd, Pat McCutcheon, Beth Paquin, Bran-
don Quinn, Stuart Quinn, Victoria Quinn, Charley Renn, Lindsey Triebel, and Shauna
Weaver.
Reviewers of previous editions include: Ramprasad Bala, University of Massa-
chusetts at Dartmouth; Phillip Barry, University of Minnesota; Bo Brinkman, Miami
University; Diane Cassidy, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Madhavi M.
Chakrabarty, New Jersey Institute of Technology; John Clark, University of Colorado
at Denver; Timothy Colburn, University of Minnesota-Duluth; Lorrie Faith Cranor,
Carnegie Mellon University; Lee D. Cornell, Minnesota State University, Mankato;
Richard W. Egan, New Jersey Institute of Technology; David Goodall, State Univer-
sity of New York at Albany; Richard E. Gordon, University of Delaware; Mike Gourley,
xxvi Preface
University of Central Oklahoma; Fritz H. Grupe, University of Nevada, Reno; Ric Heish-
man, George Mason University; Paulette Kidder, Seattle University; Evelyn Lulis, DePaul
University; Tamara A. Maddox, George Mason University; Eric Manley, Drake Univer-
sity; Richard D. Manning, Nova Southeastern University; John G. Messerly, University
of Texas at Austin; Joe Oldham, Centre College; Mimi Opkins, California State Uni-
versity, Long Beach; Holly Patterson-McNeill, Lewis-Clark State College; Colin Potts,
Georgia Tech; Medha S. Sarkar, Middle Tennessee State University; Michael Scanlan,
Oregon State University; Robert Sloan, University of Illinois at Chicago; Matthew
Stockton, Portland Community College; Leon Tabak, Cornell College; Renée Turban,
Arizona State University; Scott Vitz, Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne;
David Womack, University of Texas at San Antonio; John Wright, Juniata College; and
Matthew Zullo, Wake Technical Community College.
Finally, I am indebted to my wife Victoria for her support and encouragement. You
are a wonderful helpmate. Thanks for everything.
Michael J. Quinn
Seattle, Washington
We never know how high we are
Till we are called to rise;
And then, if we are true to plan,
Our statures touch the skies.
The heroism we recite
Would be a daily thing,
Did not ourselves the cubits warp
For fear to be a king.
—–Emily Dickinson, Aspiration
I dedicate this book to my children: Shauna, Brandon, and Courtney.
Know that my love goes with you, wherever your aspirations may lead you.
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
C H A P T E R
1 Catalysts for
Change
A tourist came in from Orbitville,
parked in the air, and said:
The creatures of this star
are made of metal and glass.
Through the transparent parts
you can see their guts.
Their feet are round and roll
on diagrams of long
measuring tapes, dark
with white lines.
They have four eyes.
The two in back are red.
Sometimes you can see a five-eyed
one, with a red eye turning
on the top of his head.
He must be special—–
the others respect him
and go slow
when he passes, winding
among them from behind.
They all hiss as they glide,
like inches, down the marked
tapes. Those soft shapes,
shadowy inside
the hard bodies—–are they
their guts or their brains?
—–May Swenson, “Southbound on the Freeway”1
1. Copyright © 1963 by the Literary Estate of May Swenson. Reprinted by permission.
2 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
1.1 Introduction
Most of us take technological change for granted. In the past two decades alone,
we have witnessed the emergence of exciting new technologies, including smartphones,
MP3 players, digital photography, email, and the World Wide Web. There is good reason
to say we are living in the Information Age. Never before have so many people had such
easy access to information. The two principal catalysts for the Information Age have
been low-cost computers and high-speed communication networks (Figure 1.1). Even
in a society accustomed to change, the rate at which computers and communication
networks have transformed our lives is breathtaking.
In 1950 there were no more than a handful of electronic digital computers in the
world. Today we are surrounded by devices containing embedded computers. We rely
upon microprocessors to control our heating and cooling systems, microwaves, smart-
phones, elevators, and a multitude of other devices we use every day. Thanks to micro-
processors, our automobiles get better gas mileage and produce less pollution. On the
other hand, the days of the do-it-yourself tune-up are gone. It takes a mechanic with
computerized diagnostic equipment to work on a modern engine.
Figure 1.1 Low-cost computers and high-speed communication networks make possible
the products of the Information Age, such as the Samsung Galaxy S4. It functions as
a phone, email client, Web browser, camera, video recorder, digital compass, and more.
(Marian Stanca/Alamy)
1.1 Introduction 3
In 1990 few people other than college professors used email. Today more than a
billion people around the world have email accounts. Email messages are routed in-
stantaneously for very low cost, which can be both a blessing and a curse. Business
communications have never been so efficient, but it’s not unusual to hear businesspeople
complain that they can never get caught up with their email.
The World Wide Web was still being designed in 1990; today it contains more than a
trillion pages and makes possible extraordinarily valuable information retrieval systems.
Even grade school children are expected to gather information from the Web when
writing their reports. However, many parents worry that their Web-surfing children may
be exposed to pornographic images or other inappropriate material.
May Swenson has vividly described our ambivalent feelings toward technology.
In her poem “Southbound on the Freeway,” an alien hovers above an expressway and
watches the cars move along [1]. The alien notes “soft shapes” inside the automobiles
and wonders, “are they their guts or their brains?” It’s fair to ask: Do we drive technology,
or does technology drive us?
Our relationship with technology is complicated. We create technology and choose
to adopt it. However, once we have adopted a technological device, it can transform us
and how we relate to other people and our environment.
Some of the transformations are physical. The neural pathways and synapses in our
brains literally change with our experiences. One well-known brain study focused on
London taxi drivers. In order to get a license, aspiring London taxi drivers must spend
two to four years memorizing the complicated road network of 25,000 streets within
10 kilometers of the Charing Cross train station, as well as the locations of thousands
of tourist destinations. The hippocampus is the region of the brain responsible for
long-term memory and spatial navigation. Neuroscientists at University College London
found that the brains of London taxi drivers have larger-than-average hippocampi and
that the hippocampi of aspiring taxi drivers grow as they learn the road network [2].
Stronger longer-term memory and spatial navigation skills are great outcomes of
mental exercise, but sometimes the physical effects of our mental exertions are more
insidious. For example, studies with macaque monkeys suggest that when we satisfy
our hunger for quick access to information through our use of Web browsers, Twitter,
and texting, neurons inside our brains release dopamine, producing a desire to seek out
additional information, causing further releases of dopamine, and so on, which may
explain why we find it difficult to break away from these activities [3, 4].
Adopting a technology can change our perceptions, too. More than 90 percent of
cell phone users report that having a cell phone makes them feel safer, but once people
get used to carrying a cell phone, losing the phone may make them feel more vulnerable
than they ever did before they began carrying one. A Rutgers University professor asked
his students to go without their cell phones for 48 hours. Some students couldn’t do it.
A female student reported to the student newspaper, “I felt like I was going to get raped
if I didn’t have my cell phone in my hand.” Some parents purchase cell phones for their
children so that a child may call a family member in an emergency. However, parents
who provide a cell phone “lifeline” may be implicitly communicating to their children
the idea that people in trouble cannot expect help from strangers [5].
4 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.2 The Amish carefully evaluate new technologies, choosing those that enhance
family and community solidarity. (AP photo/The Indianapolis Star and News, Mike Fender)
The Amish understand that the adoption of a new technology can affect the way
people relate to each other (Figure 1.2). Amish bishops meet twice a year to discuss mat-
ters of importance to the church, including whether any new technologies should be
allowed. Their discussion about a new technology is driven by the question, “Does it
bring us together, or draw us apart?” You can visit an “Old Order” Amish home and
find a gas barbecue on the front porch but no telephone inside, because they believe gas
barbecues bring people together while telephones interfere with face-to-face conversa-
tions [6].
New technologies are adopted to solve problems, but they often create problems,
too. The automobile has given people the ability to travel where they want, when they
want. On the other hand, millions of people spend an hour or more each day stuck in
traffic commuting between home and work. Refrigerators make it possible for us to keep
food fresh for long periods of time. We save time because we don’t have to go grocery
shopping every day. Unfortunately, Freon leaking from refrigerators has contributed to
the depletion of the ozone layer that protects us from harmful ultraviolet rays. New
communication technologies have made it possible for us to get access to news and
entertainment from around the world. However, the same technologies have enabled
major software companies to move thousands of jobs to India, China, and Vietnam,
putting downward pressure on the salaries of computer programmers in the United
States [7].
We may not be able to prevent a new technology from being invented, but we
do have control over whether to adopt it. Nuclear power is a case in point. Nuclear
power plants create electricity without producing carbon dioxide emissions, but they
also produce radioactive waste products that must be safely stored for 100,000 years.
1.2 Milestones in Computing 5
Although nuclear power technology is available, no new nuclear power plants were built
in the United States for more than 25 years after the accident at Three Mile Island in
1979 [8].
Finally, we can influence the rate at which new technologies are developed. Some
societies, such as the United States, have a history of nurturing and exploiting new
inventions. Congress has passed intellectual property laws that allow people to make
money from their creative work, and the federal income tax structure allows individuals
to accumulate great wealth.
Most of us appreciate the many beneficial changes that technology has brought into
our lives. In health care alone, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) scanners have greatly improved our ability to diagnose major illnesses;
new vaccines and pharmaceuticals have eradicated some deadly diseases and brought
others under control; and pacemakers, hearing aids, and artificial joints have improved
the physical well-being of millions.
To sum up, societies develop new technologies to solve problems or make life better,
but the use of new technologies changes social conditions and may create new problems.
That doesn’t mean we should never adopt a new technology, but it does give us a
good reason why we should be making informed decisions, weighing the benefits and
potential harms associated with the use of new devices. To that end, this book will help
you gain a better understanding of contemporary ethical issues related to the use of
information technology.
This chapter sets the stage for the remainder of the book. Electronic digital com-
puters and high-performance communication networks are central to contemporary
information technology. While the impact of these inventions has been dramatic in the
past few decades, their roots go back hundreds of years. Section 1.2 tells the story of the
development of computers, showing how they evolved from simple manual calculation
aids to complex microprocessors. In Section 1.3 we describe two centuries of progress
in networking technology, starting with the semaphore telegraph and culminating in
the creation of an email system connecting over a billion users. Section 1.4 shows how
information storage and retrieval evolved from the creation of the Greek alphabet to
Google. Finally, Section 1.5 discusses some of the moral issues that have arisen from the
deployment of information technology.
1.2 Milestones in Computing
Calculating devices have supported the development of commercial enterprises, gov-
ernments, science, and weapons. As you will see in this section, the introduction of new
technologies has often had a social impact.
1.2.1 Aids to Manual Calculating
Adding and subtracting are as old as commerce and taxes. Fingers and toes are handy
calculation aids, but to manipulate numbers above 20, people need more than their
6 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
own digits. The tablet, the abacus, and mathematical tables are three important aids to
manual calculating [9].
Simply having a tablet to write down the numbers being manipulated is a great
help. In ancient times, erasable clay and wax tablets served this purpose. By the late
Middle Ages, Europeans often used erasable slates. Paper tablets became common in
the nineteenth century, and they are still popular today.
An abacus is a computing aid in which a person performs arithmetic operations by
sliding counters along rods, wires, or lines. The first abacus was probably developed in
the Middle East more than two thousand years ago. In a Chinese, Japanese, or Russian
abacus, counters move along rods or wires held in a rectangular frame. Beginning in
medieval Europe, merchants performed their calculations by sliding wooden or metal
counters along lines drawn in a wooden counting board (Figure 1.3). Eventually the
word “counter” came to mean not only the disk being manipulated but also the place
in a store where transactions take place [9].
Mathematical tables have been another important aid to manual computing for
about two thousand years. A great breakthrough occurred in the early seventeenth cen-
tury, when John Napier and Johannes Kepler published tables of logarithms. These tables
were tremendous time savers to anyone doing complicated math because they allowed
them to multiply two numbers by simply adding their logarithms. Many other useful
tables were created as well. For example, businesspeople consulted tables to compute in-
terest and convert between currencies. Today, people who compute their income taxes
“by hand” make use of tax tables to determine how much they owe.
Even with tablets, abacuses, and mathematical tables, manual calculating is slow, te-
dious, and error-prone. To make matters worse, mathematical tables prepared centuries
ago usually contained errors. That’s because somebody had to compute each table entry
and somebody had to typeset each entry, and errors could occur in either of these steps.
Advances in science, engineering, and business in the post-Renaissance period moti-
vated European inventors to create new devices to make calculations faster and more
reliable and to automate the printing of mathematical tables.
1.2.2 Mechanical Calculators
Blaise Pascal had a weak physique but a powerful mind. When he got tired of summing
by hand long columns of numbers given him by his father, a French tax collector,
he constructed a mechanical calculator to speed the chore. Pascal’s calculator, built
in 1640, was capable of adding whole numbers containing up to six digits. Inspired
by Pascal’s invention, the German Gottfried Leibniz constructed a more sophisticated
calculator that could add, subtract, multiply, and divide whole numbers. The hand-
cranked machine, which he called the Step Reckoner, performed multiplications and
divisions through repeated additions and subtractions, respectively. The calculators of
Pascal and Leibniz were not reliable, however, and did not enjoy commercial success.
In the nineteenth century, advances in machine tools and mass-production meth-
ods, combined with larger markets, made possible the creation of practical calculating
machines. Frenchman Charles Thomas de Colmar utilized the stepped drum gear mech-
1.2 Milestones in Computing 7
Figure 1.3 This illustration from Gregor Reisch’s Margarita Philosophica, published in
1503, shows two aids to manual calculating. The person on the left is using a tablet; the
person on the right is adding numbers using a counting board, a type of abacus. (Heritage
Images/Corbis)
anism invented by Leibniz to create the Arithmometer, the first commercially successful
calculator. Many insurance companies purchased Arithmometers to help their actuaries
compute rate tables more rapidly [9].
Swedish publisher Georg Scheutz was intimately familiar with printing errors as-
sociated with the production of mathematical tables. He resolved to build a machine
capable of automatically calculating and typesetting table values. Scheutz knew about
the earlier work of English mathematician Charles Babbage, who had demonstrated how
a machine could compute the values of polynomial functions through the method of
8 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
differences. Despite promising early results, Babbage’s efforts to construct a full-scale
Difference Engine had been unsuccessful. In contrast, Georg Scheutz and his son Ed-
vard, who developed their own designs, completed the world’s first printing calculator:
a machine capable of calculating mathematical tables and typesetting the values onto
molds. The Dudley Observatory in Albany, New York, purchased the Scheutz difference
engine in 1856. With support from the US Nautical Almanac Office, astronomers used
the machine to help them compute the motion of Mars and the refraction of starlight.
Difference engines were never widely used; the technology was eclipsed by the emer-
gence of simpler and less expensive calculating machines [9].
America in the late 1800s was fertile ground for the development of new calcu-
lating technologies. This period of American history, commonly known as the Gilded
Age, was characterized by rapid industrialization, economic expansion, and a concen-
tration of corporate power. Corporations merged to increase efficiency and profits, but
the new, larger corporate organizations had multiple layers of management and multi-
ple locations. In order for middle- and upper-level managers to monitor and improve
performance, they needed access to up-to-date, comprehensive, reliable, and affordable
information. All these requirements could not be met by bookkeepers and accountants
using pen and paper to sum long columns of transactions by hand [10].
To meet this demand, many entrepreneurs began producing adding and calculating
machines. One of these inventors was William Burroughs, a former bank clerk who
had spent long days adding columns of figures. Burroughs devised a practical adding
machine and offered it for sale. He found himself in a cutthroat market; companies
competed fiercely to reduce the size of their machines and make them faster and easier to
use. Burroughs distinguished himself from his competitors by putting together first-class
manufacturing and marketing organizations, and by the 1890s the Burroughs Adding
Machine Company led the industry. Calculating machines were entrenched in the offices
of large American corporations by the turn of the century [10].
The adoption of mechanical calculators led to the “de-skilling” and “feminization”
of bookkeeping (Figure 1.4). Before the introduction of calculating machines, offices
were a male bastion, and men who could rapidly compute sums by hand were at a
premium. Calculators leveled the playing field, making people of average ability quite
productive. In fact, a 1909 Burroughs study concluded that a clerk using a calculator was
six times faster than a clerk adding the same column of figures by hand [11]. As man-
agers introduced mechanical calculators into offices, they replaced male bookkeepers
with female bookkeepers and lowered wages. In 1880 only 5.7 percent of bookkeepers,
cashiers, and accountants were women, but by 1910 the number of women in these jobs
had risen to 38.5 percent [12].
1.2.3 Cash Register
Store owners in the late 1800s faced challenges related to accounting and embezzlement.
Keeping accurate sales records was becoming more difficult as smaller stores evolved
into “department stores” with several departments and many clerks. Preventing embez-
zlement was tricky when clerks could steal cash simply by not creating receipts for some
sales.
1.2 Milestones in Computing 9
Figure 1.4 Mechanical calculators led to the “de-skilling” and “feminization” of book-
keeping. (Underwood Archives/Getty Images)
While on a European holiday in 1878, Ohio restaurateur James Ritty saw a mechan-
ical counter connected to the propeller shaft of his ship. A year later he and his brother
John used that concept to construct the first cash register, essentially an adding machine
capable of expressing values in dollars and cents. Enhancements followed rapidly, and by
the early 1900s the cash register had become an important information-processing de-
vice (Figure 1.5). Cash registers created printed, itemized receipts for customers, main-
tained printed logs of transactions, and performed other accounting functions that pro-
vided store owners with the detailed sales records they needed.
Cash registers also made embezzlement by clerks more difficult. The bell made it
impossible for clerks to sneak money from the cash drawer and helped ensure that every
sale was “rung up.” Printed logs made it easy for department store owners to compare
cash on hand against sales receipts [10].
1.2.4 Punched-Card Tabulation
As corporations and governmental organizations grew larger in the late 1800s, they
needed to handle greater volumes of information. One of these agencies was the US Bu-
reau of the Census, which collected and analyzed information on tens of millions of
residents every decade. Aware of the tedium and errors associated with clerks manually
copying and tallying figures, several Census Bureau employees developed mechanical
10 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.5 An NCR cash register in Miller’s Shoe Shine Parlor, Dayton, Ohio (1904). (The
NCR Archive at Dayton History)
tabulating machines. Herman Hollerith created the most successful device. Unlike a pre-
decessor, who chose to record information on rolls of paper, Hollerith decided to record
information on punched cards. The use of punched cards to store data was a much bet-
ter approach because cards could be sorted into groups, allowing the computation of
subtotals by categories. Hollerith’s equipment proved to be a great success when used in
the 1890 census. In contrast to the 1880 census, which had required eight years to com-
plete, the 1890 census was finished in only two years. Automating the census saved the
Census Bureau five million dollars, about one-third of its annual budget [13].
Other data-intensive organizations found applications for punched cards. Railroads
used them to improve their accounting operations and send bills out more frequently.
Retail organizations, such as Marshall Field’s, used punched cards to perform more
sophisticated analyses of information generated by the cash registers at its many stores.
The Pennsylvania Steel Company and other heavy industries began to use punched-card
technology to do cost accounting on manufacturing processes.
The invention of sorters, tabulators, and other devices to manipulate the data on
punched cards created a positive feedback loop. As organizations began using tabulating
machines, they thought up new uses of information-processing equipment, stimulating
further technological innovations.
International Business Machines (IBM) is the corporate descendant of Hollerith’s
company. Over a period of several decades, IBM and its principal competitor, Rem-
ington Rand, developed sophisticated machines based around punched cards: card
1.2 Milestones in Computing 11
punches, card verifiers, card tabulators, card sorters, and alphabetizers. Users used these
devices to create data-processing systems that received input data, performed one or
more calculations, and produced output data. Within these systems, punched cards
stored input data, intermediate results, and output data. In the most complicated sys-
tems, punched cards also stored the program—the steps of the computational process to
be followed. Early systems relied on human operators to carry cards from one machine
to the next. Later systems had electrical connections that allowed the output of one ma-
chine to be transmitted to the next machine without the use of punched cards or human
intervention.
Organizations with large data-processing needs found punched-card tabulators
and calculators to be valuable devices, and they continually clamored for new features
that would improve the computational capabilities and speed of their systems [10].
These organizations would become a natural market for commercial electronic digital
computers.
IBM machines played an infamous role in the Holocaust. After Adolf Hitler came
to power in Germany in 1933, IBM chief executive Thomas J. Watson overlooked well-
publicized accounts of anti-Semitic violence and the opening of concentration camps,
focusing instead on a golden business opportunity. The firm expanded the operations of
its German subsidiary, Dehomag, built a new factory in Germany, and actively sought
business from the German government. Tabulating, sorting, collating, and alphabetiz-
ing machines and support services provided by Dehomag allowed the Nazi government
to rapidly conduct censuses, identify acknowledged Jews and those with Jewish ances-
tors, and generate the alphabetical lists of names needed to efficiently seize their assets,
confine them to ghettos, and deport them to death camps [13].
1.2.5 Precursors of Commercial Computers
Several computing devices developed during and immediately after World War II paved
the way for the commercialization of electronic digital computers.
Between 1939 and 1941, Iowa State College professor John Atanasoff and his grad-
uate student Clifford Berry constructed an electronic device for solving systems of linear
equations. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the first computing device built with vac-
uum tubes, but it was not programmable.
Dr. John W. Mauchly, a physics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, visited
Iowa State College in 1941 to learn more about the Atanasoff-Berry Computer. After
he returned to Penn, Mauchly worked with J. Presper Eckert to create a design for an
electronic computer to speed the computation of artillery tables for the US Army. They
led a team that completed work on the ENIAC (electronic numerical integrator and
computer) in 1946. As it turns out, the war ended before the ENIAC could provide the
Army with any ballistics tables, but its speed was truly impressive. A person with a desk
calculator could compute a 60-second trajectory in 20 hours. The ENIAC performed
the computation in 30 seconds. In other words, the ENIAC was 2,400 times faster than
a person with a desk calculator.
The ENIAC had many features of a modern computer. All of its internal compo-
nents were electronic, and it could be programmed to perform a variety of computa-
tions. However, its program was not stored inside memory. Instead, it was “wired in”
12 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.6 The ENIAC’s first six programmers were women. Every instruction was
programmed by connecting several wires into plugboards. (© Corbis)
from the outside. Reprogramming the computer meant removing and reattaching many
wires. This process could take many days (Figure 1.6).
Even before the ENIAC was completed, work began on a follow-on system called
the EDVAC (electronic discrete variable automatic computer). The design of the EDVAC
incorporated many improvements over the ENIAC. The most important improvement
was that the EDVAC stored the program in primary memory, along with the data manip-
ulated by the program. In 1946 Eckert, Mauchly, and several other computer pioneers
gave a series of 48 lectures at the Moore School. While some of the lectures discussed
lessons learned from the ENIAC, others focused on the design of its successor, the ED-
VAC. These lectures influenced the design of future machines built in the United States
and the United Kingdom.
During World War II, British engineer F. C. Williams was actively involved in the
development of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) used in radar systems. After the war, he de-
cided to put his knowledge to use by figuring out how to use a CRT as a storage device
for digital information. In early 1948 a team at the University of Manchester set out to
build a small computer that would use a CRT storage device, now called the Williams
Tube, to store the program and its data. They called their system the Small-Scale Ex-
perimental Machine. The computer successfully executed its first program in 1948. The
Small-Scale Experimental Machine was the first operational, fully electronic computer
system that had both program and data stored in its memory.
1.2 Milestones in Computing 13
Figure 1.7 CBS news coverage of the 1952 presidential election included predictions made
by a UNIVAC computer. When the computer predicted Eisenhower would win in a landslide,
consternation followed. (Hagley Museum and Library, accession number 1984.240)
1.2.6 First Commercial Computers
In 1951 the British corporation Ferranti Ltd. introduced the Ferranti Mark 1, the world’s
first commercial computer. The computer was the direct descendant of research com-
puters constructed at the University of Manchester. Ferranti delivered nine computers
between 1951 and 1957, and later Ferranti models boasted a variety of technological
breakthroughs, thanks to the company’s close association with research undertaken at
the University of Manchester and Cambridge University.
After completing work on the ENIAC, Eckert and Mauchly formed their own com-
pany to produce a commercial digital computer. The Eckert-Mauchly Computer Cor-
poration signed a preliminary agreement with the National Bureau of Standards (rep-
resenting the Census Bureau) in 1946 to develop a commercial computer, which they
called the UNIVAC, for universal automatic computer. The project experienced huge
cost overruns, and by 1950 the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation was on the brink
of bankruptcy. Remington Rand bought them out and delivered the UNIVAC I to the
US Bureau of the Census in 1951 [14].
In a public relations coup, Remington Rand cooperated with CBS to use a UNIVAC
computer to predict the outcome of the 1952 presidential election (Figure 1.7). The
events of election night illustrate the tough decisions people can face when computers
produce unexpected results.
14 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Adlai Stevenson had led Dwight Eisenhower in polls taken before the election, but
less than an hour after the polls closed, with just 7 percent of the votes tabulated, the
UNIVAC was predicting Dwight Eisenhower would win the election in a landslide.
When CBS correspondent Charles Collingwood asked Remington Rand for the com-
puter’s prediction, however, he was given the run-around. The computer’s engineers
were convinced there was a programming error. For one thing, UNIVAC was predict-
ing that Eisenhower would carry several Southern states, and everybody “knew” that
Republican presidential candidates never won in the South. Remington Rand’s director
of advanced research ordered the engineers to change the programming so the outcome
would be closer to what the political pundits expected. An hour later, the reprogrammed
computer predicted that Eisenhower would win by only nine electoral votes, and that’s
what CBS announced. As it turns out, the computer was right and the human “experts”
were wrong. Before being reprogrammed, UNIVAC had predicted Eisenhower would
win 438 electoral votes to 93 for Stevenson. The official result was a 442–89 victory for
Eisenhower [14].
In America in the early 1950s, the word “UNIVAC” was synonymous with “com-
puter.” Remington Rand sold a total of 46 UNIVACs to government agencies, such as
the US Air Force, the US Army Map Service, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the
US Navy, as well as to large corporations and public utilities, such as General Electric,
Metropolian Life, US Steel, Du Pont, Franklin Life Insurance, Westinghouse, Pacific Mu-
tual Life Insurance, Sylvania Electric, and Consolidated Edison.
Office automation leader IBM did not enter the commercial computer market until
1953, and its initial products were inferior to the UNIVAC. However, IBM quickly
turned the tables on Remington Rand, thanks to a larger base of existing customers, a far
superior sales and marketing organization, and a much greater investment in research
and development. In 1955 IBM held more than half the market, and by the mid-1960s
IBM dominated the computer industry with 65 percent of total sales, compared to
12 percent for number two computer maker Sperry Rand (the successor to Remington
Rand) [14].
1.2.7 Programming Languages and Time-Sharing
In the earliest digital computers, every instruction was coded as a long string of 0s and
1s. People immediately began looking for ways to make coding faster and less error-
prone. One early improvement was the creation of assembly language, which allowed
programmers to work with symbolic representations of the instruction codes. Still, one
assembly language instruction was required for every machine instruction. Program-
mers wanted fewer, higher-level instructions to generate more machine instructions. In
1951 Frances Holberton, one of the six original ENIAC programmers, created a sort-
merge generator for the UNIVAC that took a specification of files to be manipulated and
automatically produced the machine program to do the sorting and merging. Building
on this work, Grace Murray Hopper, also at Remington Rand, developed the A-0 sys-
tem that automated the process of linking together subroutines to form the complete
machine code [15].
1.2 Milestones in Computing 15
Over at IBM, John Backus convinced his superiors of the need for a higher-level
programming language for IBM computers. He led the effort to develop the IBM Mathe-
matical Formula Translating System, or FORTRAN. Designed for scientific applications,
the first system was completed in 1957. Many skeptics believed that any “automatic pro-
gramming” system would generate inefficient machine code compared to hand-coded
assembly language, but they were proven wrong: the FORTRAN compiler generated
high-quality code. What’s more, programmers could write FORTRAN programs 5 to
20 times faster than the equivalent assembly language programs. Most programmers
quickly shifted allegiance from assembly language to FORTRAN. Eventually other com-
puter manufacturers developed their own FORTRAN compilers, and FORTRAN be-
came an international standard [16].
Meanwhile, business-oriented programming languages were also being developed
by several computer manufacturers. Grace Murray Hopper specified FLOW-MATIC,
an English-like programming language for the UNIVAC. Other manufacturers began
to develop their own languages. Customers didn’t like incompatible languages, because
it meant programs written for one brand of computer had to be rewritten before they
could be run on another brand of computer. In 1959 an extremely important customer,
the US Department of Defense, brought together a committee to develop a common
business-oriented programming language that all manufacturers would support. The
committee wrote the specification for COBOL. By requiring manufacturers to support
COBOL in order to get defense contracts, the US Department of Defense helped ensure
its widespread adoption [17].
In the early 1960s, John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz at Dartmouth College directed
teams of undergraduate students who developed a time-sharing system and an easy-
to-learn programming language. The Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (DTSS) gave
multiple people the ability to edit and run their programs simultaneously, by dividing
the computer’s time among all the users. Time-sharing made computers accessible to
more people because it allowed the cost of owning and operating a computer system
to be divided among a large pool of users who purchased the right to connect to the
system [18].
The development of BASIC, a simple, easy-to-learn programming language, was an-
other important step toward making computers accessible to a wider audience. Kemeny
and Kurtz saw BASIC as a way to teach programming, and soon many other educa-
tional instutions began teaching students how to program using Dartmouth BASIC. The
language’s popularity led computer manufacturers to develop their own versions of BA-
SIC [18].
1.2.8 Transistor and Integrated Circuit
Although the British had radar installations at the beginning of World War II, it be-
came clear during the Battle of Britain that their systems were inadequate. The British
and Americans worked together to develop microwave radar systems capable of locat-
ing enemy planes more precisely. Microwave radar required higher-frequency receivers
utilizing semiconductors, and in the process of manufacturing microwave radar systems
16 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.8 The eight founders of Fairchild Semiconductor on the factory floor. Gordon
Moore is second from the left and Robert Noyce is on the right. (Wayne Miller/Magnum
Photos, Inc.)
for the war effort, several American companies, including AT&T, greatly improved their
ability to create semiconductors [19].
AT&T was on the lookout for a new technology to replace the vacuum tube. Its long-
distance network relied on vacuum tubes to amplify signals, but the tubes required a lot
of power, generated a lot of heat, and burned out like lightbulbs. After the war, AT&T put
together a team of Bell Labs scientists, led by Bill Shockley, to develop a semiconductor
substitute for the vacuum tube. In 1948 Bell Labs announced the invention of such a
device, which they called the transistor [20].
While most electronics companies ignored the invention of the transistor, Bill
Shockley understood its potential. He left Bell Labs and moved to Palo Alto, California,
where he founded Shockley Semiconductor in 1956. He hired an exceptional team of en-
gineers and physicists, but many disliked his heavy-handed management style [20]. In
September 1957, eight of Shockley’s most talented employees, including Gordon Moore
and Robert Noyce, walked out. The group, soon to be known as the “traitorous eight,”
founded Fairchild Semiconductor (Figure 1.8). By this time transistors were being used
in a wide variety of devices, from transistor radios to computers. While transistors were
far superior to vacuum tubes, they were still too big for some applications. Fairchild
Semiconductor set out to produce a single semiconductor device containing transis-
tors, capacitors, and resistors; in other words, an integrated circuit. Another firm, Texas
Instruments, was on the same mission. Today, Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconduc-
1.2 Milestones in Computing 17
tor and Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments are credited for independently inventing the
integrated circuit [21].
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union played an impor-
tant role in advancing integrated circuit technology. American engineers developing the
Minuteman II ballistic missile in the early 1960s decided to use integrated circuits to im-
prove the processing speed of its guidance computer. The Minuteman II program was
the single largest consumer of integrated circuits in the United States between 1962 and
1965, representing about 20 percent of total sales. During these years companies learned
how to make rugged, reliable integrated circuits [9]. They also continued to shrink the
components within the integrated circuits, leading to an exponential increase in their
power. Gordon Moore noted this trend in a 1965 paper and predicted it would continue.
Today Moore’s law refers to the phenomenon of integrated circuits becoming twice as
powerful roughly every two years.
1.2.9 IBM System/360
The integrated circuit made possible the construction of much more powerful and
reliable computers. The 1960s was the era of mainframe computers—large computers
designed to serve the data-processing needs of large businesses. Mainframe computers
enabled enterprises to centralize all of their data-processing applications in a single
system. As we have seen, by this time IBM dominated the mainframe market in the
United States.
In 1964 IBM announced the System/360, a series of 19 compatible computers with
varying levels of computing speed and memory capacity (Figure 1.9). Because the sys-
tems were software compatible, a business could upgrade its computer without having
to rewrite its application programs. This feature was important, because by the 1960s
companies were making much larger investments in software.
1.2.10 Microprocessor
In 1968 Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild Semiconductor to found another
semiconductor manufacturing company, which they named Intel. A year later Japanese
calculator manufacturer Busicom approached Intel about designing 12 custom chips
for use in a new scientific calculator. Intel agreed to provide the chips and assigned
responsibility for the project to Marcian “Ted” Hoff. After reviewing the project, Hoff
suggested that it was not in Intel’s best interest to manufacture a custom chip for every
customer. As an alternative, he suggested that Intel create a general-purpose chip that
could be programmed to perform a wide variety of tasks. Each customer could program
the chip to meet its particular needs. Intel and Busicom agreed to the plan, which
reduced the required number of chips for Busicom’s calculator from 12 to 4. A year of
development by Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor, and Federico Faggin led to the release of the
Intel 4004, the world’s first microprocessor. Inside the 1/8-inch × 1/6-inch chip were
2,300 transistors, giving the Intel 4004 the same computing power as the ENIAC, which
had occupied 3,000 cubic feet.
Microprocessors made it possible to integrate computers into everyday devices. To-
day we’re surrounded by devices containing microprocessors: cell phones, MP3 players,
18 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.9 In the 1960s, IBM dominated the mainframe computer market in the United
States. (IBM/AP Photo)
digital cameras, wristwatches, ATM machines, automobiles, microwave ovens, ther-
mostats, traffic lights, and much more. The highest-profile use of microprocessors, how-
ever, is in personal computers.
1.2.11 Personal Computer
During the Vietnam conflict in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the area around San Fran-
cisco was home to a significant counterculture, including a large number of antiwar
and antiestablishment activists. The do-it-yourself idealism of the power-to-the-people
movement intersected with advances in computer technology in a variety of ways, in-
cluding the Whole Earth Catalog , the People’s Computer Company, and the Homebrew
Computer Club [22].
The Whole Earth Catalog , first published in 1968, was, in the words of Steve Jobs,
“sort of like Google in paperback form” [23]—an effort to pull together in a single
1.2 Milestones in Computing 19
large volume lists of helpful tools, in this case for the creation of a more just and
environmentally sensitive society. The definition of “tools” was broad; the catalog’s lists
included books, classes, garden tools, camping equipment, and (in later issues) early
personal computers. “With the Whole Earth Catalog , Stewart Brand offered a generation
of computer engineers and programmers an alternative vision of technology as a tool for
individual and collective transformation” [24, p. 104].
The People’s Computer Company was a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to ed-
ucating people on how to use computers. One of its activities was publishing a newspa-
per. The cover of the first issue read: “Computers are mostly used against people instead
of for people, used to control people instead of to free them, time to change all that—we
need a PEOPLE’S COMPUTER COMPANY” [25]. Typical issues contained program-
ming tips and the source code to programs, particularly educational games written in
BASIC. The newspaper’s publisher, Bob Albrecht, said, “I was heavily influenced by the
Whole Earth Catalog . I wanted to give away ideas” [24, p. 114]. The People’s Computer
Company also set up the People’s Computer Center in a strip mall in Menlo Park. The
center allowed people to rent teletype terminals connected to a time-shared computer.
A large number of teenagers were drawn to computing through Friday evening game-
playing sessions. Many users wrote their own programs, and the center promoted a
culture in which computer enthusiasts freely shared software with each other.
In 1975 the Homebrew Computer Club, an outgrowth of the People’s Computer
Company, became a meeting place for hobbyists interested in building personal com-
puters out of microprocessors. A company in Albuquerque, New Mexico, called MITS,
had recently begun shipping the Altair 8800 personal computer, and during the first few
Homebrew Computer Club meetings, members showed off various enhancements to
the Altair 8800. Progress was frustratingly slow, however, due to the lack of a higher-level
programming language.
Three months after the establishment of the Homebrew Computer Club, MITS
representatives visited Palo Alto to demonstrate the Altair 8800 and the BASIC inter-
preter created by Paul Allen and Bill Gates, who had a tiny company called Micro-Soft.
The audience in the hotel conference room was far larger than expected, and during
the overcrowded and chaotic meeting somebody acquired a paper tape containing the
source code to Altair BASIC. More than 70 copies of the tape were handed out at the
next meeting of the Homebrew Computer Club. After that, free copies of the interpreter
proliferated. Some hobbyists felt that the asking price of $500 for the BASIC interpreter
was too high, considering that the Altair computer itself cost only $395 as a kit or $495
preassembled [22].
Bill Gates responded by writing “An Open Letter to Hobbyists” that was reprinted
in a variety of publications. In the letter he asserted that less than 10 percent of all Altair
owners had purchased BASIC, even though far more people than that were using it.
According to Gates, the royalties Micro-Soft had received from Altair BASIC made the
time spent on the software worth less than $2 an hour. He wrote, “Nothing would please
me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with
good software,” but the theft of software created “very little incentive” for his company
to release new products [22].
20 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.10 Steve Jobs (right) convinced Steve Wozniak they should go into business selling
the personal computer Wozniak designed. They named their company Apple Computer.
(© Kimberly White/Corbis)
The controversy over Altair BASIC did not slow the pace of innovations. Hobby-
ists wanted to do more than flip the toggle switches and watch the lights blink on the
Altair 8800. Steve Wozniak, a computer engineer at Hewlett-Packard, created a more
powerful personal computer that supported keyboard input and television monitor out-
put. Wozniak’s goal was to make a machine for himself and to impress other members of
the Homebrew Computer Club, but his friend Steve Jobs thought of a few improvements
and convinced Wozniak they should go into business (Figure 1.10). They raised $1,300
by selling Jobs’s Volkswagen van and Wozniak’s Hewlett-Packard scientific calculator,
launching Apple Computer. Although the company sold only 200 Apple I computers, its
next product, the Apple II, became one of the most popular personal computers of all
time.
By the end of the 1970s, many companies, including Apple Computer and Tandy,
were producing personal computers. While hundreds of thousands of people bought
personal computers for home use, businesses were reluctant to move to the new com-
puter platform. However, two significant developments made personal computers more
attractive to businesses.
The first development was the computer spreadsheet program. For decades firms
had used spreadsheets to perform financial predictions. Manually computing spread-
sheets was monotonous and error-prone, since changing a value in a single cell could
require updating many other cells. In the fall of 1979, Bob Frankston and Harvard MBA
1.3 Milestones in Networking 21
student Dan Bricklin released their program, called VisiCalc, for the Apple II. VisiCalc’s
labor-saving potential was obvious to businesses. After a slow start, it quickly became
one of the most popular application programs for personal computers. Sales of the Apple
II computer increased significantly after the introduction of VisiCalc.
The second development was the release of the IBM PC in 1981. The IBM name
exuded reliability and respectability, making it easier for companies to make the move
to desktop systems for their employees. As the saying went, “Nobody ever got fired for
buying from IBM.” In contrast to the approach taken by Apple Computer, IBM decided
to make its PC an open architecture, meaning the system was built from off-the-shelf
parts and other companies could manufacture “clones” with the same functionality. This
decision helped to make the IBM PC the dominant personal computer architecture.
The success of IBM-compatible PCs fueled the growth of Microsoft. In 1980 IBM
contracted with Microsoft to provide the DOS operating system for the IBM PC.
Microsoft let IBM have DOS for practically nothing, but in return IBM gave Microsoft
the right to collect royalties from other companies manufacturing PC-compatible com-
puters. Microsoft profited handsomely from this arrangement when PC-compatibles
manufactured by other companies gained more than 80 percent of the PC market [26].
1.3 Milestones in Networking
In the early nineteenth century, the United States fell far behind Europe in network-
ing technology. The French had begun constructing a network of telegraph towers in
the 1790s, and forty years later there were towers all over the European continent (Fig-
ure 1.11). At the top of each tower was a pair of semaphores. Operators raised and
lowered the semaphores; each pattern corresponded to a letter or symbol. A message
initiated at one tower would be seen by another tower within viewing distance. The re-
ceiving tower would then repeat the message for the next tower in the network, and so
on. This optical telegraph system could transmit messages at the impressive rate of about
350 miles per hour when skies were clear.
In 1837 Congress asked for proposals to create a telegraph system between New
York and New Orleans. It received one proposal based on proven European technology.
Samuel Morse submitted a radically different proposal. He suggested constructing a
telegraph system that used electricity to communicate the signals. Let’s step back and
review some of the key discoveries and inventions that enabled Morse to make his
dramatic proposal.
1.3.1 Electricity and Electromagnetism
Amber is a hard, translucent, yellowish-brown fossil resin often used to make beads and
other ornamental items. About 2,600 years ago the Greeks discovered that if you rub
amber, it becomes charged with a force enabling it to attract light objects such as feathers
and dried leaves. The Greek word for amber is ηλ�κτρων (electron). Our word “electric”
literally means “to be like amber.”
22 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.11 A semaphore telegraph tower on the first line from Paris to Lille (1794).
(Leemage/Getty Image)
For more than two thousand years amber’s ability to attract other materials was seen
as a curiosity with no practical value, but in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
scientists began to study electricity in earnest. Alessandro Volta, a professor of physics at
the University of Pavia, made a key breakthrough when he discovered that electricity
could be generated chemically. He produced an electric current by submerging two
different metals close to each other in an acid. In 1799 Volta used this principle to create
the world’s first battery. Volta’s battery produced an electric charge more than 1,000
times as powerful as that produced by rubbing amber. Scientists soon put this power
to practical use.
In 1820 Danish physicist Christian Oersted discovered that an electric current cre-
ates a magnetic field. Five years later British electrician William Sturgeon constructed an
electromagnet by coiling wire around a horseshoe-shaped piece of iron. When he ran an
electric current through the coil, the iron became magnetized. Sturgeon showed how a
single battery was capable of producing a charge strong enough to pick up a nine-pound
metal object.
In 1830 American professor Joseph Henry rigged up an experiment that showed
how a telegraph machine could work. He strung a mile of wire around the walls of
his classroom at the Albany Academy. At one end he placed a battery; at the other
end he connected an electromagnet, a pivoting metal bar, and a bell. When Henry
connected the battery, the electromagnet attracted the metal bar, causing it to ring the
bell. Disconnecting the battery allowed the bar to return to its original position. In this
way he could produce a series of rings.
1.3 Milestones in Networking 23
Figure 1.12 Pony Express riders lost their jobs when the US transcontinental telegraph line
was completed in 1861. (© North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy)
1.3.2 Telegraph
Samuel Morse, a professor of arts and design at New York University, worked on the idea
of a telegraph during most of the 1830s, and in 1838 he patented his design of a telegraph
machine. The US Congress did not approve Morse’s proposal in 1837 to construct a New
York–to–New Orleans telegraph system, but it did not fund any of the other proposals
either. Morse persisted with his lobbying, and in 1843 Congress appropriated $30,000
to Morse for the construction of a 40-mile telegraph line between Washington, DC, and
Baltimore, Maryland.
On May 1, 1844, the Whig party convention in Baltimore nominated Henry Clay for
president. The telegraph line had been completed to Annapolis Junction at that time. A
courier hand-carried a message about Clay’s nomination from Baltimore to Annapolis
Junction, where it was telegraphed to Washington. This was the first news reported via
telegraph. The line officially opened on May 24. Morse, seated in the old Supreme Court
chamber inside the US Capitol, sent his partner in Baltimore a verse from the Bible:
“What hath God wrought?”
The value of the telegraph was immediately apparent, and the number of tele-
graph lines quickly increased. By 1846 telegraph lines connected Washington, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New York, Buffalo, and Boston. In 1850 twenty different companies oper-
ated 12,000 miles of telegraph lines. The first transcontinental telegraph line was com-
pleted in 1861, putting the Pony Express out of business (Figure 1.12). The telegraph
was the sole method of rapid long-distance communication until 1877. By this time the
United States was networked by more than 200,000 miles of telegraph wire [27].
The telegraph was a versatile tool, and people kept finding new applications for it.
For example, by 1870 fire alarm telegraphs were in use in 75 major cities in the United
24 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
States. New York City alone had 600 fire alarm telegraphs. When a person pulled the
lever of the alarm box, it automatically transmitted a message identifying its location to
a fire station. These devices greatly improved the ability of fire departments to dispatch
equipment quickly to the correct location [27].
1.3.3 Telephone
Alexander Graham Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, into a family focused on
impairments of speech and hearing. His father and grandfather were experts in elocution
and the correction of speech. His mother was almost completely deaf. Bell was educated
to follow in the same career path as his father and grandfather, and he became a teacher
of deaf students. Later, he married a deaf woman.
Bell pursued inventing as a means of achieving financial independence. At first he
focused on making improvements to the telegraph. A significant problem with early
telegraph systems was that a single wire could transmit only one message at a time. If
multiple messages could be sent simultaneously along the same wire, communication
delays would be reduced, and the value of the entire system would increase.
Bell’s solution to this problem was called a harmonic or musical telegraph. If you
imagine hearing Morse code, it’s obvious that all of the dots and dashes are the same
note played for a shorter or longer period of time. The harmonic telegraph assigned
a different note (different sound frequency) to each message. At the receiving end,
different receivers could be tuned to respond to different notes, as you can tune your
radio to hear only what is broadcast by a particular station.
Bell knew that the human voice is made up of sounds at many different frequencies.
From his work on the harmonic telegraph, he speculated that it should be possible to
capture and transmit human voice over a wire. He and Thomas A. Watson succeeded
in transmitting speech electronically in 1876. Soon after, they commercialized their
invention.
Nearly all early telephones were installed in businesses. Leasing a telephone was
expensive, and most people focused on its commercial value rather than its social value.
However, the number of phones placed in homes increased rapidly in the 1890s, after
Bell’s first patent expired.
Once telephones were placed in the home, the traditional boundaries between pri-
vate family life and public business life became blurred. People enjoyed being able to
conduct business transactions from the privacy of their home, but they also found that
a ringing telephone could be an unwelcome interruption [28].
Another consequence of the telephone was that it eroded traditional social hierar-
chies. An 1897 issue of Western Electrician reports that Governor Chauncey Depew of
New York was receiving unwanted phone calls from ordinary citizens: “Every time they
see anything about him in the newspapers, they call and tell him what a ‘fine letter he
wrote’ or ‘what a lovely speech he made,’ or ask if this or that report is true; and all this
from people who, if they came to his office, would probably never say more than ‘Good
morning’ ” [29].
1.3 Milestones in Networking 25
People also worried about the loss of privacy brought about by the telephone. In
1877 the New York Times reported that telephone men responsible for operating an
early system in Providence, Rhode Island, overheard many confidential conversations.
The writer fretted that telephone eavesdropping would make it dangerous for anyone in
Providence to accept a nomination for public office [28].
The telephone enabled the creation of the first “online” communities. In rural areas
the most common form of phone service was the party line: a single circuit connecting
multiple phones to the telephone exchange. Party lines enabled farmers to gather by their
phones every evening to talk about the weather and exchange gossip [30].
The power of this new medium was demonstrated in the Bryan/McKinley presiden-
tial election of 1896. For the first time, presidential election returns were transmitted
directly into people’s homes. “Thousands sat with their ear glued to the receiver the
whole night long, hypnotized by the possibilities unfolding to them for the first time”
[31].
1.3.4 Typewriter and Teletype
For hundreds of years people dreamed of a device that would allow an individual to
produce a document that looked as if it had been typeset, but the dream was not realized
until 1867, when Americans Christopher Sholes, Carlos Glidden, and Samuel Soule
patented the first typewriter. In late 1873 Remington & Sons Company, famous for guns
and sewing machines, produced the first commercial typewriter. It was difficult to use
and was not well received; Remington & Co. sold only 5,000 machines in the first five
years. However, the typewriter did get the attention of Mark Twain, who used it to
produce Tom Sawyer, which may have been the world’s first typewritten manuscript.
By 1890 more reliable typewriters were being produced, and the typewriter became a
common piece of office equipment [32].
In 1908 Charles and Howard Krum succeeded in testing an experimental machine
that allowed a modified Oliver typewriter to print a message transmitted over a telegraph
line. They called their invention the teletype. During the 1920s, news organizations
began using teletype machines to transmit stories between distant offices, and Wall
Street firms began sending records of stock transactions over teletypes.
1.3.5 Radio
Earlier we described how the experiments of Oersted, Sturgeon, and Henry led to the
development of the electromagnet and the telegraph. The connection between electric-
ity and magnetism remained mysterious, however, until Scottish physicist James Clerk
Maxwell published a mathematical theory demonstrating their relationship. This the-
ory predicted the existence of an electromagnetic wave spreading with the velocity of
light. It also predicted that light itself was an electromagnetic phenomenon. In 1885
Heinrich Hertz successfully generated electromagnetic waves, proving the correctness
of Maxwell’s theory.
26 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Guglielmo Marconi put Hertz’s discovery to practical use by successfully transmit-
ting radio signals in the hills outside Bologna, Italy, in 1895. Unable to attract the at-
tention of the Italian government, he took his invention to England, where he founded
the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company. The name of the company reflects Marconi’s
concept of how his invention would be used. To Marconi, radio, or “wireless,” was a
superior way to transmit telegraph messages.
David Sarnoff emigrated from Russia to the United States with his family when
he was nine. When he had completed school, he landed a position with the Marconi
Wireless Telegraph Company. In 1912 Sarnoff made a name for himself when his of-
fice relayed news about the sinking of the Titanic. Four years later, Sarnoff suggested the
use of radio as an entertainment device, writing: “I have in mind a plan of development
which would make radio a household utility in the same sense as the piano or phono-
graph. . . . The receiver can be designed in the form of a simple music box . . . [which]
can be placed in the parlor or living room” [33]. In two decades, Sarnoff ’s vision had
become a reality.
The power of radio as a medium of mass communication was demonstrated on the
evening of October 30, 1938 (the night before Halloween). From CBS Radio Studio One
in New York, Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater put on a one-hour dramatization
of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds (Figure 1.13). To increase suspense, the play was
performed as a series of news bulletins interrupting a concert of dance music. These
bulletins described events occurring on a farm near Grovers Mill, New Jersey. Many
listeners panicked. “People packed the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, even wrapped
their heads in wet towels as protection from Martian poison gas, oblivious to the fact
that they were acting out the role of the panic-stricken public that actually belonged in
a radio play” [34].
1.3.6 Television
Broadcasting video over a wire began in 1884 with the invention of an electro-
mechanical television by Paul Nipkow, but the first completely electronic television
transmission was made in 1927 by Philo Farnsworth. Millions of Americans were for-
mally introduced to the television at the 1939 World’s Fair held in New York City, which
had as its theme “The World of Tomorrow.” Since an early retail television set cost about
as much as an automobile, televisions remained a rarity in American households until
the 1950s, when prices fell dramatically.
Television’s ability to send a message around the world was demonstrated in July
1969. Hundreds of millions of people watched on live TV as astronaut Neil Armstrong
stepped from the lunar module onto the surface of the Moon (Figure 1.14).
Television has created many opportunities for “news junkies” to get their fixes.
The major commercial broadcast television networks have been supplemented by Fox,
CNN, and other cable news organizations plus a myriad of Web sites. The various
organizations compete with each other to be the first to break news stories. Increasingly,
the media have turned to computer technology to help them provide information to the
public. Sometimes this has led to embarrassing mistakes, as in the 2000 US presidential
election.
1.3 Milestones in Networking 27
Figure 1.13 Orson Welles’s radio adaption of War of the Worlds on the evening of
October 30, 1938, convinced many Americans that Martians were attacking New Jersey.
(© Bettmann/Corbis)
At about 7:50 p.m. on the evening of Tuesday, November 7, 2000, before the polls
had even closed in the Florida panhandle, the major networks began announcing that
Al Gore would be the winner in Florida. Based on the expected result of the Florida
election, the networks went on to predict—while people were still voting in the Western
states—that Al Gore would be the next president of the United States.
You might be wondering how it is possible to predict the outcome of an election
before everyone has voted. In a practice known as exit polling, a company called Voter
News Service questions people leaving polling places. It combines the information it
collects with early returns to predict the outcome of elections. Since 1988 the television
networks have relied upon the Voter News Service to provide them with exit polling
results.
28 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
Figure 1.14 On July 20, 1969, television images of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon
were broadcast to hundreds of millions of viewers around the world. (Courtesy of NASA)
As it turns out, Voter News Service’s prediction was wrong. More than a month after
the election, after a series of recounts and court decisions, George W. Bush was declared
the victor in Florida. With Florida’s electoral votes in hand, Bush won the presidency.
1.3.7 Remote Computing
Working at his kitchen table in 1937, Bell Labs researcher George Stibitz built a binary
adder out of telephone relays, batteries, flashlight bulbs, tin strips, and wire. He took
his invention back to Bell Labs and enlisted the help of Samuel Williams. Over the next
two years they built the Complex Number Calculator, an electromechanical system that
would add, subtract, multiply, and divide complex numbers.
Stibitz’s next action is what sets him apart from other computer pioneers. He made
a teletype machine the input/output device for the Complex Number Calculator. With
this innovation, he did not have to be in the same room as the calculator to use it; he
could operate it remotely.
In 1940 Stibitz demonstrated remote computing to members of the American
Mathematical Society who were meeting at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. He
typed numbers into the teletype, which transmitted the data 250 miles to the calculator
in New York City. After the calculator had computed the answer, it transmitted the data
back to the teletype, which printed the result.
1.3.8 ARPANET
In reaction to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957, the Department of
Defense created the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). ARPA funded research
and development at prominent universities. The agency’s first director, J. C .R. Licklider,
imagined a “galactic network”—a global computer network that would facilitate the
1.3 Milestones in Networking 29
exchange of programs and data.2 This view of the computer as a device to improve
communication was in stark contrast to the mind-set of computer manufacturers, which
continued to think of computers as number-crunching machines.
Conventional, circuit-switched telephone networks were not a good foundation
upon which to build a global computer network (Figure 1.15a). Between 1961 and 1967,
three research teams independently came up with an alternative to circuit-switched
networks. These teams were led by Donald Davies and Roger Scantlebury at NPL in
England, Paul Baran at RAND, and Leonard Kleinrock at MIT. Eventually the new design
came to be called a packet-switched network (Figure 1.15b).
In 1967 ARPA initiated the design and construction of the ARPANET. Fear of a
nuclear attack led to the crucially important design decision that the network should
be decentralized. In other words, the loss of any single computer or communication link
would not prevent the rest of the network from working. Every computer on the network
would have the ability to make decisions about how message traffic should be routed.
Packet-switched networks met this condition; circuit-switched networks did not.
BBN in Boston was responsible for the Interface Message Processor (IMP) that
connected a computer to the telephone network. In 1969 BBN delivered its first four
IMPs to UCLA, the Stanford Research Institute, the University of California at Santa
Barbara, and the University of Utah.
1.3.9 Email
During the earliest years of ARPANET, the networked computers could transfer pro-
grams and data only. ARPANET users still relied upon the telephone for personal com-
munications. In March 1972, Ray Tomlinson at BBN wrote the first software enabling
email messages to be sent and received by ARPANET computers. A few months later,
Lawrence Roberts created the first “killer app” for the network: an email utility that gave
individuals the ability to list their email messages, selectively read them, reply to them,
forward them to others, and save them. Email quickly became the most popular network
application.
Today email is one of the most important communication technologies on the
planet. More than 200 billion email messages are sent each day.
1.3.10 Internet
ARPA researchers anticipated the need to connect the ARPANET with other networks
based on different designs. Robert Kahn developed the concept of open architecture
networking, which means individual networks could be quite different as long as they
shared a common “internetworking architecture.” Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn de-
signed the TCP/IP protocol that would support open architecture networking [36]. TCP
(Transmission Control Protocol) is responsible for dividing a message into packets at the
2. The primary source document for this description of the evolution of the Internet is A Brief History
of the Internet by Barry M. Leiner et al. [35].
30 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
(a)
(b)
A
C B B
A
C
A
A
C
C B B
Figure 1.15 Comparison of circuit-switched networking and packet-switched networking.
(a) In a circuit-switched network, a single physical connection is established between the two
ends. The physical connection cannot be shared. In this illustration, one circuit links the two
computers labeled A, and another circuit links the two computers labeled B. The computers
labeled C may not communicate at this time, because no circuit can be established. (b) In
a packet-switched network, a message is divided into small bundles of data called packets.
Every packet has the address of the computer where it should be routed. If there is more
than one path from the message source to the message destination, different message
packets may take different routes. Packets from different messages may share the same
wire. In this illustration, three pairs of computers (labeled A, B, and C) are communicating
simultaneously over a packet-switched network.
sending computer and reassembling the packets at the receiving computer. IP (Internet
Protocol) is the set of rules used to route data from computer to computer. The Internet
is the network of networks that communicate using TCP/IP. You could call January 1,
1983, the birth date of the Internet, because that was the date on which all ARPANET
hosts converted to TCP/IP.
1.3 Milestones in Networking 31
1.3.11 NSFNET
The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States saw the importance of
networking to the academic community. It created a TCP/IP–based network called
NSFNET, and it provided grants to universities to join the NSFNET. These grants en-
couraged broad participation by stipulating that universities would have to make their
Internet connections available to all qualified users. The NSFNET consisted of regional
networks connected by the NSFNET backbone.
The NSF encouraged the universities participating in regional networks to reduce
their network subscription costs by finding commercial customers for the networks. At
the same time, the NSF banned commercial traffic on the NSFNET backbone. These
policies stimulated private companies to create commercial, long-distance Internet con-
nections in the United States. In April 1995 the NSF ceased funding the NSFNET back-
bone. Commercial network providers, well established by this time, took over the task
of supplying long-distance Internet connections in the United States.
1.3.12 Broadband
The term broadband refers to a high-speed Internet connection. Broadband connections
make feasible the transfer of large files, such as those containing images, music, and
video. The growth of file swapping among Internet users has paralleled the growth of
broadband connections.
Typical broadband speeds vary widely among highly developed countries. The
world broadband leaders are South Korea, with an average speed of 14.0 megabits per
second; Japan, at 10.8 megabits per second; and Hong Kong, at 9.3 megabits per second.
The United States ranks eighth in the world, with an average broadband speed of 7.4
megabits per second [37].
1.3.13 Wireless Networks
Cell phones, also known as mobile phones, allow telephone calls to be made over radio
links. The first cell phone, demonstrated by Motorola in 1973, was quite large and
weighed two and a half pounds. Advances in integrated circuits and other technologies
have allowed companies to shrink the size and weight of cell phones substantially while
greatly increasing their capabilities. Modern smartphones, such as the one shown in
Figure 1.1, weigh just a few ounces and support a wide variety of services in addition to
voice communication, including text messaging, email, and broadband Internet access.
The proliferation of cellular networks has been dramatic, particularly in developing
countries. People living in areas never reached by wired telephone service now have the
ability to communicate with others and access the Internet. In fact, the total number of
cell phone subscriptions worldwide is rapidly approaching seven billion. At the end of
2012 there were 128 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in developed countries and
about 89 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in developing countries [38].
In 1993 Henrik Sjödin proposed the development of public access wireless local area
networks. Today wireless Internet access points, or hotspots, are commonplace at cof-
fee shops, libraries, airports, university campuses, and other public places where people
32 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
gather. Computers and other electronic devices within range of the hotspot commu-
nicate with the hotspot using radio waves. Most hotspots use a technology known as
Wi-Fi.
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval
The previous two sections surveyed technological developments related to manipulating
and transmitting information, respectively. This section focuses on the development of
technologies to store and retrieve information.
1.4.1 Greek Alphabet
As civilizations expanded around 6,000 years ago, writing systems were developed to
allow the recording and communication of various types of information, such as laws
and financial records. There are three general types of writing systems. In a logography
each character represents a word, in a syllabary each character represents a syllable, and
in an alphabet each character represents a phoneme.
Around 750 BC the Greeks developed the first true alphabet: an alphabet represent-
ing vowel sounds as well as consonant sounds. Compared with earlier writing systems
developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the 24-letter Greek alphabet was a simple, effi-
cient way of transforming the spoken word into written form, and it marked an impor-
tant milestone on the journey of civilization from an oral culture to a written culture.
The English alphabet we use today is a direct descendant of the alphabet used by the
ancient Greeks.
1.4.2 Codex and Paper
Two thousand years ago, important information was recorded on papyrus scrolls
wrapped around wooden rods. Papyrus had to be stored this way to keep from breaking
apart. Even so, the ends of papyrus scrolls tended to fall off.
The development of the codex was a significant advance in information storage and
retrieval technology. A codex was made up of rectangular pages sewn together on one
side. These pages were made out of sheepskin (parchment) or calfskin (vellum). The
codex was superior to papyrus in two ways. First, the codex was much more durable
than a papyrus roll. Second, since it was divided into pages, the codex made it much
easier for readers to find a particular passage: they could simply flip to the desired page.
Between the second and fourth centuries, the codex gradually replaced the scroll as
the most popular method of recording important information. The Church accelerated
the transition by insisting that all sacred texts be recorded in codices, to distinguish them
from Hebrew scriptures kept on scrolls.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish monks preserved Western culture by
copying Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian texts into codices [39]. Centuries later, most
codices were produced using a process of wood engraving. A craftsman would take a
block of wood and laboriously chisel away the background for a portion of a page,
leaving the letters and illustrations raised. When all the wooden blocks for a page were
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval 33
carved, they would be fastened together. After the surface was inked, a blank page would
be printed by pressing the blocks down on the inked surface.
In the late Middle Ages, explorers brought back from China the technology for
manufacturing paper in mass quantities. By the fifteenth century paper gradually began
to replace parchment in less expensive European codices.
1.4.3 Gutenberg’s Printing Press
In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg began work on a printing press that would imprint pages
using movable metal type rather than wood blocks, and in 1455 work was completed on
Gutenberg’s famous “42 Line Bible.” Soon other printers were using the same technology
to produce codices. The principal customer of these publishers was the Church. Hence
most early publications were religious books and pamphlets.
The printing press proved itself to be a powerful tool for mass communication dur-
ing the Reformation. Martin Luther did more than nail his 95 theses to the door of a
church—he published them. Between 1517 and 1520, more than 300,000 copies of Mar-
tin Luther’s publications were sold [40]. In the next 50 years, the number of religious
tracts produced by Protestant reformers would outnumber those of their Catholic op-
ponents by a factor of 10 to 1.
1.4.4 Newspapers
The printing press made possible the establishment of newspapers. Newspapers pro-
vided an important new way for private citizens to get their points of view heard. A free
press serves as a powerful counterweight to government and its desire to manage the
flow of information. It is not surprising, then, that there is a long history of government
censorship or suppression of newspapers.
The first English-language newspaper appeared in Great Britain in the 1600s.
Throughout most of the seventeenth century the government controlled the press by
licensing approved newspapers and suppressing the rest. However, in 1695 Parliament
declined to renew the Licensing Act, paving the way for a free press in England.
In America, newspapers helped to unify the colonies. As colonists read newspapers
published in other colonies, they came to realize what values and concerns they shared
with other colonists up and down the Atlantic seaboard. In this way newspapers played
an important role in swaying American public opinion toward favoring independence
from Great Britain.
1.4.5 Hypertext
The July 1945 issue of the Atlantic Monthly contained a visionary paper, “As We May
Think,” written by Vannevar Bush, who had served as director of the Office of Scientific
Research and Development in World War II. In the paper Bush noted, “The world has
arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to
come of it” [41, p. 102]. He described many ways in which technology can solve impor-
tant problems. One of the problems he focused on was that of information retrieval. He
pointed out how difficult it is for scientists to keep up with all the research results that are
34 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
being published, especially when indexing systems do not lend themselves toward expos-
ing the relationships among documents. Bush noted that the human mind doesn’t work
by indexing. Instead, our memories are associative. When we think of one thing, other
related memories awaken in our minds. He suggested that a machine could simulate, to
some degree, the mind’s ability to make associations between pieces of information. He
gave a description for the Memex, an information retrieval system equipped with “a pro-
vision whereby any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically
another” [41, p. 107].
Ted Nelson was raised by his grandparents in Greenwich Village, New York. He was
a graduate student studying sociology at Harvard when he took his first computer class.
There he discovered that “everything everyone was saying about computers was a lie. It
was up to me to design the literature of the future” [42 p. 134]. In 1965 Nelson coined
the word hypertext, which refers to a linked network of nodes containing information.
The links allow readers to visit the nodes in a nonlinear fashion [43]. The proposed
system had much in common with Bush’s proposal for Memex. In 1967 Nelson proposed
the creation of a system called Xanadu, a worldwide network of connected literature.
Despite decades of work and a $5 million investment from Autodesk, the system was
never completed [42].
1.4.6 Graphical User Interface
Douglas Engelbart grew up on a dairy farm in Oregon. After graduating from high
school, he attended Oregon State College, but his electrical engineering studies were
interrupted by World War II. While he was stationed in the Philippines, he worked with
radar and read “As We May Think” by Vannevar Bush. These two experiences shaped his
views about the potential of computing. When his military service ended, he completed
his degree at OSC and took a job at Ames Laboratory, but soon began wondering,
“How can my career maximize my contribution to mankind?” [44]. Engelbart decided
to return to school and completed a PhD in electrical engineering from the University
of California at Berkeley in 1955. He joined the Stanford Research Institute, where he set
out to use the power of the computer to augment human intellect.
In the 1950s and 1960s, people submitted computer jobs in the form of decks of
punch cards and often waited hours for them to run. Computer output was typically
pages full of numbers that programmers would laboriously examine. Engelbart won-
dered why people couldn’t interact directly with computers and view the output on a
CRT, like radar images. He created a research lab called the Augmentation Research
Center. This lab developed a hypermedia and groupware system called NLS (oNLine
System). Engelbart invented several new input devices, including the computer mouse.
In 1968 at the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco, he gave a 90-minute
demonstration of NLS that included a video display divided into windows, email, use
of a mouse to direct a cursor, and live videoconferencing with staff members 30 miles
away (Figure 1.16). Engelbart’s presentation is still called “the mother of all demos.”
Paul Saffo said, “It was like a UFO landing on the White House lawn.” The presenta-
tion was so far ahead of its time that some audience members thought it was a hoax
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval 35
Figure 1.16 Douglas Engelbart rehearses for his presentation at the 1968 Fall Joint
Computer Conference that is still called “the mother of all demos.” (Courtesy of SRI)
[45]. Others thought Engelbart’s ideas were completely impractical, noting that he was
treating a computer as if it were for his personal use.
Alan Kay saw Engelbart’s demo, understood the ramifications of the NLS, and was
eager to take the next step. In 1970 he became one of the founding members of Xerox
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), a new facility dedicated to performing research into
digital technology. The research team created the Alto, a small minicomputer designed to
be used by a single person. The Alto incorporated a bitmapped display, a keyboard, and
a mouse. Kay played a leading role in developing the Alto’s graphical user interface that
responded to the point, click, and drag operations of a mouse. In order to link together
the Altos, the Xerox PARC team also created Ethernet, which became a networking
standard throughout the computer industry. Ultimately, however, Xerox failed in its
attempt to market a commercial personal computer.
In 1979 Apple Computer sold 10 percent of its stock to Xerox. In return, Xerox let
Steve Jobs and some Apple engineers visit Xerox PARC to learn more about its research.
Jobs returned from the visit committed to building a computer with a graphical user
interface. A few years later Apple released the Lisa, a $10,000 personal computer with
a graphical user interface. The price tag was too high, the processor was too slow, and
the Lisa was not commercially successful. However, in January 1984 Apple released the
Macintosh, a faster $2,495 computer with a graphical user interface. The Macintosh was
an instant hit: Apple sold 300,000 in the first year.
During the 1980s IBM, VisiCorp, and Microsoft all offered graphical user interfaces
for IBM PC-compatible computers, but they could not compare in sophistication to the
interface of the Apple Macintosh. Finally, in May 1990 Microsoft released Windows 3.0
36 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
for IBM PCs. Consumers eagerly bought 10 million copies of Windows, giving Microsoft
a near monopoly in the graphical user interface market that it has maintained ever since.
1.4.7 Single-Computer Hypertext Systems
In 1982 Peter Brown at the University of Kent at Canterbury started a hypertext research
project. He named the software Guide. Later, Office Workstations Ltd. commercialized
Guide, releasing versions for both the Apple Macintosh and the IBM PC.
In 1987 Apple Computer released HyperCard, a hypertext system that enabled
programmers to create “stacks” of “cards.” A card could contain text and images. The
HyperCard programmer created links from one card to another with “buttons.” Buttons
could be visible to the user and labeled, or they could be transparent and associated with
an image or an area of the card.
Users typically viewed one card at a time. They jumped from one card to another by
using the computer’s mouse to move a cursor over a button and then clicking the mouse.
The best-selling computer games Myst and Riven were actually HyperCard stacks.
1.4.8 Networked Hypertext: World Wide Web
Tim Berners-Lee is the son of two mathematicians, both of whom were programmers
for the Ferranti Mark 1 computer in the 1950s. From them, Berners-Lee learned that,
“in principle, a person could program a computer to do most anything” [46, p. 3]. He
also learned that it is easy to get a computer to keep information in lists or tables, but
much more difficult to get it to remember arbitrary relationships.
When Berners-Lee was in high school, his father read some books about the brain;
the two of them talked about how a computer might be able to make neural-like connec-
tions the way a brain does. This idea stuck with Berners-Lee, and in 1980, while working
for CERN in Switzerland, he wrote a program called Enquire that incorporated links be-
tween information. Berners-Lee was not familiar with the work of Vannevar Bush, Ted
Nelson, or Doug Engelbart, but he was heading in the same direction.
In late 1989 Berners-Lee wrote a memo to a management team at CERN, proposing
the development of a networked hypertext system that could be used for documentation
purposes. When they didn’t respond, he tried again in the spring of 1990. Again, no
response. However, an intriguing new personal computer called the NeXT had just
been released. Berners-Lee asked his boss if he could purchase a NeXT to check out its
operating system and programming environment. His boss okayed the purchase, then
puckishly suggested that maybe Berners-Lee ought to test the system’s capabilities by
implementing his proposed hypertext system on it [46].
Unlike earlier commercial hypertext systems, Berners-Lee’s system allowed links
between information stored on different computers connected by a network. Because
it is built on top of the TCP/IP protocol, links can connect any two computers on the
Internet, even if they have different hardware or are running different operating systems.
A Web browser is a program that allows a user to view Web pages and traverse
hyperlinks between pages. Berners-Lee completed the first Web browser on the NeXT
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval 37
Figure 1.17 Using the Web, you can access up-to-date traffic information from many major
cities. (Copyright © 2011 by WSDOT. Reprinted with permission.)
Computer on Christmas Day 1990. He called his browser WorldWideWeb. In March
1991 he released the browser to some computer users at CERN.
The first widely used Web browser was Mosaic, developed at the University of Illi-
nois, Urbana-Champaign. Today, the most popular Web browsers are Chrome, Internet
Explorer, Firefox, and Safari. These browsers enable Web surfers to retrieve text, still
images, movies, songs, computer programs—in theory, anything that can be digitized.
The Web has also become a convenient way for organizations to provide access to news
updates and dynamically changing information (Figure 1.17).
1.4.9 Search Engines
A search engine is a program that accepts a list of keywords from a user, searches a data-
base of documents, and returns those documents most closely matching the specified
keywords. Today the term search engine is most frequently used to describe programs
that search databases of Web pages. Web search engines are the most powerful informa-
tion retrieval devices ever invented. The most popular Web search engine, Google, has
indexed billions of Web pages.
There are two types of Web search engines. Crawler-based search engines, such
as Google and AltaVista, automatically create the database of information about Web
pages. In a process similar to Web surfing, programs called spiders follow hyperlinks,
eventually visiting millions of different Web pages. Summary information about these
38 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
pages is collected into massive databases. When you perform a query, the search engine
consults its database to find the closest matches.
The second type of Web search engine relies upon humans to build the database
of information about various Web pages. People who develop a Web site can submit a
summary of their site to the keepers of the search engine. Alternatively, those responsible
for the search engine may create their own reviews of Web sites. The advantage of this
kind of search engine is that humans can create more accurate summaries of a Web page
than a spider program. The disadvantage of this approach is that only a small fraction of
the Web can be cataloged. The Open Directory Project falls into this category.
1.5 Information Technology Issues
Information technology (IT) refers to devices used in the creation, storage, manipula-
tion, exchange, and dissemination of data, including text, sound, and images. Comput-
ers, telephones, and video cameras are examples of IT. The cost of IT devices continues
to fall while their capabilities continue to increase. As a result, people are making greater
use of IT in their everyday lives. Some of these uses create new issues that need to be
resolved. Let’s look at a few of the questions raised by the growth of IT.
The great power of email is that it allows (at least in principle) anyone to send email
to anyone else with an email address. Now that just about everyone has an email account,
it is easier than ever to contact friends and family. Parents who used to complain because
they never got letters from their children at college found out that it was much easier to
keep in touch via email. On the other hand, most email traffic is spam: unsolicited, bulk,
commercial email. Is spam destroying the value of email?
Thanks to the Web, it is easier than ever to share information with people all over the
world. Imagine I live in Canada and post some controversial files on my Web site. Some
Americans visit my Web site and download the files, an action that violates US laws.
Should I be prevented from posting material that is legal in Canada but illegal in the
United States?
For many items of value, making the original copy is expensive, but making copies
of the original is inexpensive. For example, an entertainment company may spend hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars to produce a CD, but once a CD has been ripped into MP3
files, the Internet provides a fast and free way to distribute the music. As a result, unau-
thorized copies of songs, movies, and computer programs are proliferating. Should we
continue to give ownership rights to creators of intellectual property, or is it hopeless?
If we no longer give ownership rights to creators of intellectual property, will creativity
suffer?
If I use a credit card to purchase an item, the credit card company now has infor-
mation about my spending habits. Who has a right to that information? For example, if
I buy a pair of water skis with my credit card, does the credit card company have a right
to sell my name, address, and phone number to other companies that may want to sell
me related products?
The use of IT has changed the way that banks process loan applications. Rather than
using a personal interview to decide my creditworthiness, the bank consults a national
Summary 39
credit bureau. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative approach
to lending money?
Computers are now embedded in many devices on which we depend, from traf-
fic signals to pacemakers. Software errors have resulted in injury and even death. When
bugs result in harm to humans, what should the liability be for the people or corpora-
tions that produced the software?
When employees use IT devices in their work, companies can monitor their actions
closely. For example, a company can track the number of calls per minute each of its
telephone operators is handling. It can document the number of keystrokes per minute
of its data entry operators. It can log all of the Web sites its employees visit, and it can
read the email they send and receive at work. How does such monitoring affect the
workplace? Does it create an unacceptable level of stress among employees?
IT is allowing more people than ever to work from home. What are the advantages
and disadvantages of telecommuting?
IT capabilities are leading to changes in the IT industry itself. Silicon Valley used
to be the epicenter of the IT industry, but improvements in the speed and reliability
of communication networks have led to a more decentralized landscape. Hotspots of
innovation now include Seattle, Washington (Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft), Austin,
Texas (Advanced Micro Devices, Cisco Systems, and Dell), Walldorf, Germany (SAP),
and Bangalore, India (Infosys and Wipro). US-based software companies are doing more
development in countries where salaries are much lower, such as India, China, and
Vietnam [7]. Will this trend continue? How many software jobs in the United States
will be lost to countries where labor is significantly cheaper?
Human rights organizations have criticized Foxconn, the contract manufacturer
that makes electronic devices for Apple, Amazon, Dell, and HP, for placing its Chinese
employees in unsafe working conditions and forcing them to work longer than the
Chinese legal maximum of 49 hours per week [47]. Should consumers of electronic
devices boycott products that are made under unsafe or illegal conditions, or would such
boycotts actually make conditions worse for workers in developing nations by depriving
them of an income?
The World Wide Web has provided an unprecedented opportunity for individuals
and nongovernmental organizations to have their points of view made available to bil-
lions. This could bring about new levels of citizen involvement and democratic reform.
On the other hand, some countries are making large portions of the Web unavailable to
their citizens. Will the Web prove to be a tool for democracy, or will it be muzzled by
repressive regimes?
Summary
We are living in the Information Age, an era characterized by ubiquitous computing
and communication devices that have made information much easier to collect, trans-
mit, store, and retrieve. These devices are the culmination of centuries of technological
progress.
40 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
What conclusions can we draw from our study of the development of computers,
communication networks, and information storage and retrieval devices? First, revolu-
tionary discoveries are rare. Most innovations represent simply the next step in a long
staircase of evolutionary changes. Each inventor, or team of inventors, relies upon prior
work. In many cases different inventors come up with the same “original” idea at the
same time.
A second conclusion we can draw from these stories is that information technology
did not begin with the personal computer and the World Wide Web. Many other inven-
tions, including the telegraph, the telephone, the mechanical calculator, the radio, and
the television, led to significant social changes when they were adopted.
Finally, with the emergence of new technologies come new challenges that test our
values. Is it right to give your friends copies of songs you have purchased? Until music
was distributed in digital form and high-bandwidth connections to the Internet became
ubiquitous, this wasn’t a significant issue. Is it right for a government to keep track of
every telephone call made by its citizens? That was only a hypothetical question until
the computerization of telephone exchanges and the creation of massive storage devices
made possible this kind of surveillance and record keeping.
The use of a new technology can have a significant impact on a society, but we
need to remember that, as societies and as individuals, we have a great deal of control
over how we choose to use a technology in order to maintain the values we hold to be
fundamentally important. As Seymour Papert observed:
So we are entering this computer future; but what will it be like? What sort of a
world will it be? There is no shortage of experts, futurists, and prophets who are
ready to tell us, but they don’t agree. The Utopians promise us a new millennium, a
wonderful world in which the computer will solve all our problems. The computer
critics warn us of the dehumanizing effect of too much exposure to machinery, and
of disruption of employment in the workplace and the economy.
Who is right? Well, both are wrong—because they are asking the wrong ques-
tion. The question is not “What will the computer do to us?” The question is “What
will we make of the computer?” The point is not to predict the computer future. The
point is to make it. [48]
© Zits Partnership, King Features Syndicate
Review Questions 41
Review Questions
1. According to the author, why is there good reason to say we are living in the Information
Age?
2. What can the Amish teach us about our relationship with technology?
3. Name three aids to manual calculating.
4. Why did commercial mechanical calculators become practical in the nineteenth cen-
tury?
5. Why did the market for mechanical calculators grow significantly in the late nineteenth
century?
6. What factors helped the Burroughs Adding Machine Company to surpass a large num-
ber of competitors and become the most successful calculator company by the 1890s?
7. How did the widespread adoption of the mechanical calculator change the office envi-
ronment?
8. What needs motivated the invention of the cash register?
9. Give four examples of how punched cards were used by large organizations in the early
twentieth century.
10. What are the three principal components of a data-processing system?
11. Name three ways the development of radar in World War II stimulated advances in
computing.
12. Why did IBM quickly overtake Remington Rand as the leading computer manufacturer
in the United States in the 1950s?
13. What was the motivation for the creation of higher-level programming languages? How
did the introduction of higher-level programming languages change computing?
14. How did time-sharing give more organizations access to electronic digital computers in
the 1960s?
15. In what way did the Cold War accelerate the development of technology needed for the
personal computer?
16. What was the principal innovation of the IBM System/360?
17. Can you think of a practical reason why the semaphore telegraph was adopted more
rapidly on the continent of Europe than in the British Isles?
18. Give two examples of how the introduction of Morse’s telegraph changed life in America.
19. Briefly describe three ways in which society changed by adopting the telephone.
20. What is the difference between a circuit-switched network and a packet-switched net-
work?
21. Why does the Internet have a decentralized structure?
22. How did the National Science Foundation stimulate the creation of commercial, long-
distance data networks in the United States?
23. Describe two ways in which the codex represented an improvement over the scroll.
24. What is hypertext?
42 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
25. How is a hypertext link similar to a citation in a book? How is it different?
26. The Apple Macintosh succeeded in the marketplace, while the Apple Lisa failed. Give
two reasons why this happened.
27. In what fundamental way is an Apple HyperCard stack different from the World
Wide Web?
28. Berners-Lee decided to build the World Wide Web on top of the TCP/IP protocol. Why
did this decision help ensure the success of the Web?
29. Name four popular Web browsers in use today.
30. What is a search engine? Describe the two types of search engines.
31. What is information technology?
32. Name three inventions described in this chapter that were created for a military appli-
cation.
33. Give four examples from the book of how a social condition influenced the development
of a new technology.
34. Give four examples from the book of a social change brought about by the adoption of
a new technology.
Discussion Questions
35. Think about the last piece of consumer electronics you purchased. How did you first
learn about it? What factors (features, price, ease of use, etc.) did you weigh before you
purchased it? Which of these factors were most influential in your purchase decision?
Are you still happy with your purchase?
36. Do you tend to acquire new technological devices before or after the majority of your
friends? What are the advantages of being an early adopter of a new technology? What
are the advantages of being a late adopter of a new technology?
37. Have you ever gone camping or had another experience where you went for at least a
few days without access to a phone, radio, television, or computer? (In other words,
there was no communication between you and the outside world.) What did you learn
from your experience?
38. Are there any technologies that you wish had never been adopted? If so, which ones?
39. Some say that no technology is inherently good or evil; rather, any technology can be
used for either good or evil purposes. Do you share this view?
40. The telephone eroded traditional social hierarchies. Has email had the same effect within
colleges and universities? Do students send emails to people they would be uncomfort-
able talking with personally? Are these emails effective?
41. Is the cell phone changing our views about polite and impolite behavior? For example,
is it polite for someone to be talking on their cell phone while ordering a drink at
Starbucks?
In-Class Exercises 43
42. Martin Carnoy writes, “Thanks to a communications and software revolution, we are
more ‘connected’ than ever before—by cell phone, email, and video conferencing—yet
more disconnected than in the past from social interaction” [49]. Do you agree?
43. Was it wrong for Altair 8800 owners to use Altair BASIC on their computers without
paying Micro-Soft?
44. The story of Altair BASIC highlights a clash between those who see software as some-
thing to be developed and freely shared among computer enthusiasts and those who see
software development as an entrepreneurial activity. Give some contemporary examples
that illustrate these contrasting views of software.
45. More than 90 percent of personal computers run a version of the Microsoft Windows
operating system. In what ways is this situation beneficial to computer users? In what
ways does this situation harm computer users?
46. Angelo says, “When I’m trying to have a face-to-face conversation with someone, and
that person repeatedly interrupts the conversation to answer their cell phone or ex-
change text messages, they are basically telling me that I’m not worth all of their at-
tention.” Do you agree with Angelo?
In-Class Exercises
47. Use four different search engines (www.altavista.com, www.bing.com, www.google.com,
www.yahoo.com) to perform a search on the phrase “Information Technology.” Create a
table that compares the top 10 Web pages returned by each search engine. Which engines
were the most similar?
48. Managers of health clubs are concerned that people in locker rooms may be secretly
photographed by other members carrying smartphones.
Debate the following proposition: “Health clubs should ban all cell phone use
within their premises.”
49. In the 1984 presidential election, all the major television networks used computers to
predict that Republican Ronald Reagan would defeat Democrat Walter Mondale, even
before the polls closed on the West Coast. When they heard this news, some Mondale
supporters who had been waiting in line to vote simply went home without voting. This
may have influenced the results of some statewide and local elections.
Debate the following proposition: “In presidential elections polls should close at
the same time everywhere in the United States.”
50. Ford, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Volvo, and other automobile manufacturers are
currently offering collision mitigation systems on some of their vehicles. A collision
mitigation system uses radar to sense when the distance between the car and the vehicle
in front of it is rapidly decreasing. The system provides audio and visual warnings to
the driver when dangerous situations are detected. It also pretightens the seat belts. If
the driver fails to respond, the system brakes the car and tightens the seat belt further to
reduce the impact of the collision.
Debate the following proposition: “Every new car should be equipped with a colli-
sion mitigation system.”
www.altavista.com
www.bing.com
www.google.com
www.yahoo.com
44 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
51. Read about “Star Wars Kid” and “The Bus Uncle” on Wikipedia, then debate the follow-
ing proposition: “It is wrong to post a photo or video of someone else on the Internet
without their permission.”
Further Reading and Viewing
Nicholar Carr. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Atlantic, July/August 2008.
Charles Duhigg and David Barboza. “In China, the Human Costs That Are Built into an
iPad.” New York Times, January 26, 2012.
Andrew Keen. “Opinion: Facebook Threatens to ‘Zuck Up’ the Human Race.” CNN.com,
May 30, 2012. www.cnn.com.
Kevin Kelly. “We Are the Web.” Wired, August 2005.
Erik Kruse. “On the Brink of a Networked Society.” BOLDtalks, April 1, 2013. 18:36. www
.youtube.com/watch?v=iazoyHS5tZ4.
Randall Maclowry. “Silicon Valley.” American Experience, February 5, 2013. 1:23:11. video
.pbs.org.
Marc Perry. “Scholars Sound the Alert from the ‘Dark Side’ of Tech Innovation.” The Chron-
icle of Higher Education, May 8, 2013.
Robert Rosenberger. “Viewpoint: The Problem with Hands-Free Dashboard Cellphones.”
Communications of the ACM , April 2013.
Paul Solman. “How Virtual Reality Games Can Transform Society, Prosperity.” PBS News-
Hour, July 11, 2013. 10:27. video.pbs.org.
John D. Sutter. “Despite Horses and Buggies, Amish Aren’t Necessarily ‘Low-Tech.’ ” CNN
.com, June 22, 2011. www.cnn.com.
References
[1] May Swenson. “Southbound on the Freeway.” New Yorker, February 16, 1963.
[2] Ferris Jabr. “Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers’ Brains Grow to Navigate London’s Streets.”
Scientific American, December 8, 2011.
[3] Ethan S. Bromberg-Martin and Okihide Hikosaka. “Midbrain Dopamine Neurons
Signal Preference for Advance Information about Upcoming Rewards,” Neuron, Vol.
26, pp. 119–126, July 16, 2009.
[4] Susan Weinschenk. “100 Things You Should Know about People: #8—Dopamine
Makes You Addicted to Seeking Information.” What Makes Them Click: Applying Psy-
chology to Understand How People Think, Work, and Relate (blog), November 7, 2009.
www.whatmakesthemclick.net.
[5] Christine Rosen. “Our Cell Phones, Ourselves.” New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology
& Society, Summer 2004.
[6] Howard Rheingold. “Look Who’s Talking.” Wired (7.01), January 1999.
[7] “The New Geography of the IT Industry.” The Economist , pp. 47–49, July 19, 2003.
[8] D’Arcy Jenish and Catherine Roberts. “Heating Up Nuclear Power.” Maclean’s
113(24): 19, June 11, 2001.
www.cnn.com
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iazoyHS5tZ4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iazoyHS5tZ4
www.cnn.com
www.whatmakesthemclick.net
References 45
[9] Peggy A. Kidwell and Paul E. Ceruzzi. Landmarks in Digital Computing: A Smithsonian
Pictorial History. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1994.
[10] James Cortada. Before the Computer: IBM, NCR, Burroughs, & Remington Rand & the
Industry They Created, 1865–1956. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000.
[11] “A Better Day’s Work at Less Cost of Time, Work, and Worry to the Man at the Desk:
In Three Parts Illustrated,” 3d ed. Burroughs Adding Machine Company, Detroit,
Michigan, 1909.
[12] Sharon H. Strom. “ ‘Machines Instead of Clerks’: Technology and the Feminization
of Bookkeeping, 1910–1950.” In Computer Chips and Paper Clips: Technology and
Women’s Employment, Volume II: Case Studies and Policy Perspectives, edited by Heidi
I. Hartmann, Robert E. Kraut, and Louise A. Tilly. National Academies Press, Wash-
ington, DC, 1987.
[13] Edwin Black. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and
America’s Most Powerful Corporation. Dialog Press, Washington, DC, 2011.
[14] Joel Shurkin. Engines of the Mind: The Evolution of the Computer from Mainframes to
Microprocessors. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1996.
[15] Grace Murray Hopper. “Keynote Address.” In History of Programming Languages,
edited by Richard L. Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1981.
[16] John Backus. “The History of FORTRAN I, II, and III.” In History of Programming
Languages, edited by Richard L. Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1981.
[17] Jean E. Sammet. “The Early History of COBOL.” In History of Programming Languages,
edited by Richard L. Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1981.
[18] Thomas E. Kurtz. “Basic.” In History of Programming Languages, edited by Richard L.
Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1981.
[19] Robert Buderi. The Invention That Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar
Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technological Revolution. Simon
and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996.
[20] Michael Riordan and Lillian Hoddeson. Crystal Fire: The Birth of the Information Age.
W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1997.
[21] Frederick Seitz and Norman G. Einspruch. Electronic Genie: The Tangled History of
Silicon. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1998.
[22] John Markoff. What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the
Personal Computer Industry. Penguin Books, New York, NY, 2005.
[23] Steve Jobs. “You’ve Got to Find What You Love.” Commencement speech, Stanford
University, June 12, 2005.
[24] Fred Turner. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth
Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
2006.
[25] The People’s Computer Company, Issue 1, cover, October 1972.
[26] Paul Carroll. Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM . Crown Publishers, New York, NY, 1993.
[27] Sidney H. Aronson. “Bell’s Electrical Toy.” In The Social Impact of the Telephone, edited
by Ithiel de Sola Pool. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
[28] Carolyn Marvin. When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking about Electric Communi-
cations in the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1988.
[29] “Telephone Cranks.” Western Electrician (Chicago), p. 37, July 17, 1897.
46 Chapter 1 Catalysts for Change
[30] Ithiel de Sola Pool. Introduction. In The Social Impact of the Telephone, edited by Ithiel
de Sola Pool. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
[31] Asa Briggs. “The Pleasure Telephone.” In The Social Impact of the Telephone, edited by
Ithiel de Sola Pool. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
[32] Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray. Computer: A History of the Information
Machine. BasicBooks, New York, NY, 1996.
[33] James Wood. History of International Broadcasting. Peter Peregrinus, London, United
Kingdom, 1992, p. 12.
[34] “War of the Worlds, Orson Welles, and the Invasion from Mars.” Transparency (Web
site). www.transparencynow.com.
[35] Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock,
Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephen Wolff. A Brief History of the
Internet, Version 3.32, December 10, 2003. www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml.
[36] Vinton G. Cerf and Robert E. Kahn. “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommuni-
cation.” IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-22(5), May 1974.
[37] “The State of the Net Is Strong! — Top Takeaways from the Akamai Report.” Broad-
band for America, April 25, 2013. www.broadbandforamerica.com.
[38] “Global Mobile Statistics 2013 Part A: Mobile Subscribers; Handset Market Share;
Mobile Operators.” dotMobi, May 2013. www.mobithinking.com.
[39] Thomas Cahill. How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Role from
the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe. Anchor Books, New York, NY, 1995.
[40] Elizabeth L. Eisenstein. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Volume 1. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1979.
[41] Vannevar Bush. “As We May Think.” Atlantic Monthly, 176(1):101–108, August 1945.
[42] Owen Edwards. “Ted Nelson.” Forbes ASAP, August 25, 1997.
[43] Lauren Wedeles. “Prof. Nelson Talk Analyzes P.R.I.D.E.” Vassar Miscellany News,
February 3, 1965.
[44] Tia O’Brien. “From the Archives: Douglas Engelbart’s Lasting Legacy, 1999.” San Jose
Mercury News, July 3, 2013.
[45] “Internet Pioneers: Doug Engelbart.” ibiblio (Web site) accessed September 23, 2013.
www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/engelbart.html.
[46] Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, 1999.
[47] Vindu Goel. “Foxconn Audit Finds a Workweek Still Too Long.” New York Times, May
16, 2013.
[48] Seymour Papert. “A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking about the School of
the Future.” Technical report, MIT Media Lab, September 1990. Epistemology and
Learning Memo No. 2.
[49] Martin Carnoy. Sustaining the New Economy: Work, Family, and the Community in the
Information Age, p. x. Russel Sage Foundation/Harvard University Press, New York,
NY/Cambridge, MA, 2000.
www.transparencynow.com
www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
www.broadbandforamerica.com
www.mobithinking.com
www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/engelbart.html
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
Dalton Conley
Dalton Conley is dean for the social sciences, as well as university
professor, at New York University. In 2005 he became the first sociologist
(and second social scientist) to win the Alan T. Waterman Award from
the National Science Foundation for best young researcher in any field
of science, math, or engineering. Conley’s research focuses on how
socio-economic status is transmitted across generations and on the
public policies that affect that process.
He has written six books, including Elsewhere, U.S.A.: How We Got from
the Company Man, Family Dinners and the Age of Affluence to the Home Office,
BlackBerry Moms and Economic Anxiety (2009, New York: Pantheon). In addition to writing books,
he is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Slate, Fortune, and the
Chronicle of Higher Education. He also lectures frequently and has appeared on Today, The O’Reilly Factor,
PBS NewsHour, Fresh Air, and 20/20. He has been named one of nine “innovative minds” by SEED
magazine.
What do you mean by your term the “Elsewhere Ethic”?
I argue that whereas once the ethical imperative in American life—as embodied in the culture of
individualism—was to “find oneself,” that ethic has morphed into one in which we need to “manage
one’s selves.” That is, with constant connectivity and the concomitant decline in solitude, we no longer
have the space or opportunity to find a true, single, authentic self. With Facebook, Twitter, email logs,
and so on, there is hardly a private social space anymore—what sociologist Erving Goffman called the
“backstage.” Instead, the imperative is to be able to manage these multiple data streams and impulses
and avatars in different media of communication.
What are the phenomena that have given rise to the Elsewhere Ethic?
Communications technology, of course, but also rising income inequality and economic anxiety as
well as increased work–life tension due to the rapid rise in working mothers (combined with a lack of
decline in fathers’ work hours that might have compensated).
Are you saying that teenagers texting at the dinner table are just following the lead of
adults?
I am saying that the entire culture has shifted, and often youth—the so-called digital natives—have
been completely reared and socialized within the new normative context. Older folks like myself are
caught between the old ethic of individualism and the new fragmented intravidualism.
How has social change driven the development of new information technologies, such as
cell phones, text messaging, and movie-recommendation software?
A Marxist would say that technology drives social change. Some others might say that technology
merely embodies or reacts to social change. Most of the rest of us social scientists would say that
there is a feedback loop. Yes, the Internet revolution and other telecommunications technologies have
fundamentally altered the social landscape by, for example, erasing boundaries between home and
office, work and leisure, friends and colleagues, public and private. But the development and spread
of those technologies is also reactive to social changes such as the increase in two-working-parent
families, which, in a sense, necessitate an increased level of connectivity to manage work and home
responsibilities. Likewise, rising work hours and inequality have also adopted the work-always ethos of
the current epoch, which is both facilitated by and drives demand for ever-faster telecommunications
technologies.
Is it possible or even desirable to return to a less connected lifestyle in which people really
give each other their undivided attention?
Desirable is in the eye of the beholder. We can always make a conscious choice to drop out, tune in,
and so on. And you can already see a backlash in the popular culture in the form of the slow-food,
slow-living movement. However, you can never go home again, as the saying goes, because even if you
make efforts to regulate your own attention and usage of technologies, you are doing so on a shifted
playing field, fighting intense forces that didn’t exist to the same degree in earlier times.
Okay, so there’s no going back. What’s the best way to move forward?
There are many great aspects of this networked world of “weisure” (a portmanteau that combines work
and leisure in this blurred lifestyle). If we are lucky enough to be a member of the Elsewhere Class, we
can telecommute when our kids are home sick. We can use our iPhone to locate a farmers’ market in
a strange city in which we find ourselves on a business trip. And work has become more fun for this
class. More and more of us find not just our calling—our identity—from our work; many of us also
find pleasure and joy in the rhythm of our weisurely lives where we are needed and connected. So my
advice is not to pine for a nostalgic past of uninterrupted family dinners and beach vacations. The most
successful (and fulfilled) firms and individuals are going to be the ones who bend and blend rather than
erect rigid modernist boundaries between the spheres of life. That might mean de-emphasizing “face
time” if tasks can be done on Skype. Or it could mean providing on-site day care. Or laundry rooms
and gyms at the office (as Google does). Employees find that more convenient, and employers get more
productive workers whose other tasks don’t get in the way of their work in the knowledge economy.
C H A P T E R
2 Introduction
to Ethics
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part
of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a
promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any
man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never
send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
—–John Donne, Meditation XVII
2.1 Introduction
Imagine hovering above the Earth in a spacecraft on a cloudless night. Looking
down upon our planet, you see beautiful constellations of artificial light (Figure 2.1).
The stars in these incandescent galaxies are our communities.
Forming communities allows us to enjoy better lives than if we lived in isolation.
Communities facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Instead of each family as-
suming responsibility for all of its needs, such as food, housing, clothing, education,
and health care, individuals can focus on particular activities. Specialization results in
higher productivity that increases everyone’s quality of life. Communities foster the de-
velopment of fulfilling personal relationships, and they make people more secure against
external dangers.
There is a price associated with being part of a community. Communities prohibit
certain actions and make other actions obligatory. Those who do not conform to these
50 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Figure 2.1 Looking down on London, England, at night from space. (Courtesy of NASA)
prohibitions and obligations can be punished. Still, the fact that almost everyone does
live in a community is strong evidence that the advantages of community life outweigh
the disadvantages.
Responsible community members take the needs and desires of other people into
account when they make decisions. They recognize that virtually everybody shares the
“core values” of life, happiness, and the ability to accomplish goals. People who respect
only their own needs and desires are taking the selfish point of view. Moving to the
“ethical point of view” requires a decision that other people and their core values are
also worthy of respect [1].
People who take the ethical point of view may still disagree over what is the proper
course of action to take in a particular situation. Sometimes the facts of the matters are
disputable. At other times, different value judgments arising from competing ethical
theories lead people to opposite conclusions. For this reason, it is worthwhile to have
a basic understanding of some of the most popular ethical theories. In this chapter we
describe the difference between morality and ethics, discuss a variety of ethical theories,
evaluate their pros and cons, and show how to use the more viable ethical theories to
solve moral problems.
2.1.1 Defining Terms
A society is an association of people organized under a system of rules designed to ad-
vance the good of its members over time [2]. Cooperation among individuals helps
promote the common good. However, people in a society also compete with each other;
2.1 Introduction 51
for example, when deciding how to divide limited benefits among themselves. Some-
times the competition is relatively trivial, such as when many people vie for tickets to
a concert. At other times the competition is much more significant, such as when two
start-up companies seek dominance of an emerging market. Every society has rules of
conduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations. We call
these rules morality.
A person may simultaneously belong to multiple societies, which can lead to moral
dilemmas. For example, what happens when a pacifist (according to the rules of his
religion) is drafted to serve in the armed forces (according to the laws of his nation)?
Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people’s
moral beliefs and behavior. Consider the following analogy (Figure 2.2). Society is like
a town full of people driving cars. Morality is the road network within the town. People
ought to keep their cars on the roads. Those who choose to “do ethics” are in balloons
floating above the town. From this perspective, an observer can evaluate individual
roads (particular moral guidelines) as well as the quality of the entire road network
(moral system). The observer can also judge whether individual drivers are staying on
the roads (acting morally) or taking shortcuts (acting immorally). Finally, the observer
can propose and evaluate various ways of constructing road networks (alternative moral
Ethical
Theory
1 Ethical
Theory
3
Ethical
Theory
2
Welcome
to Society
Pop. 3147
Figure 2.2 An analogy explaining the difference between ethics and morality. Imagine
society as a town. Morality is the road network within the town. People doing ethics are in
balloons floating above the town.
Randall
Highlight
52 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
systems). While there may in fact be a definite answer regarding the best way to construct
and operate a road network, it may be difficult for the observers to identify and agree
upon this answer, because each observer has a different viewpoint.
The study of ethics is particularly important right now. Our society is changing
rapidly as it incorporates the latest advances in information technology. Just think about
how cell phones, portable digital music players, tablets, and social apps have changed
how we spend our time and interact with others! These inventions have brought us
many benefits. However, some people selfishly exploit new technologies for personal
gain, even if that reduces their overall benefit for the rest of us. Here are two examples.
While most of us are happy to have the ability to send email to people all over the world,
others engage in “phishing” to steal financial information. Access to the World Wide
Web provides libraries with an important new information resource for their patrons,
but should children be allowed to follow links leading to pornographic Web sites?
When we encounter new problems such as phishing or pornographic Web sites, we
need to decide which activities are morally “good,” which are morally “neutral,” and
which are morally “bad.” Unfortunately, existing moral guidelines sometimes seem old-
fashioned or unclear. If we can’t always count on “common wisdom” to help us answer
these questions, we need to learn how to work through these problems ourselves.
2.1.2 Four Scenarios
As an initiation into the study of ethics, carefully read each of the following scenarios.
After reflection, come up with your own answer to each of the questions.
� Scenario 1
Alexis, a gifted high school student, wants to become a doctor. Because she
comes from a poor family, she will need a scholarship in order to attend college.
Some of her classes require students to do extra research projects in order to
get an A. Her high school has a few older PCs, but there are always long lines
of students waiting to use them during the school day. After school, she usually
works at a part-time job to help support her family.
One evening Alexis visits the library of a private college a few miles from
her family’s apartment, and she finds plenty of unused PCs connected to the
Internet. She surreptitiously looks over the shoulder of another student to learn
a valid login/password combination. Alexis returns to the library several times
a week, and by using its PCs and printers she efficiently completes the extra
research projects, graduates from high school with straight A’s, and gets a full-
ride scholarship to attend a prestigious university.
Questions
1. Did Alexis do anything wrong?
2. Who benefited from Alexis’s course of action?
3. Who was hurt by Alexis’s course of action?
4. Did Alexis have an unfair advantage over her high school classmates?
Randall
Highlight
2.1 Introduction 53
5. Would any of your answers change if it turns out Alexis did not win a college
scholarship after all and is now working at the Burger Barn?
6. Are there better ways Alexis could have accomplished her objective?
7. What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous
questions? �
� Scenario 2
An organization dedicated to reducing spam tries to get Internet service
providers (ISPs) in an East Asian country to stop the spammers by protecting
their mail servers. When this effort is unsuccessful, the antispam organization
puts the addresses of these ISPs on its blacklist. Many ISPs in the United States
consult the blacklist and refuse to accept email from the blacklisted ISPs. This
action has two results. First, the amount of spam received by the typical email
user in the United States drops by 25 percent. Second, tens of thousands of
innocent computer users in the East Asian country are unable to send email to
friends and business associates in the United States.
Questions
1. Did the antispam organization do anything wrong?
2. Did the ISPs that refused to accept email from the blacklisted ISPs do anything
wrong?
3. Who benefited from the organization’s action?
4. Who was hurt by the organization’s action?
5. Could the organization have achieved its goals through a better course of
action?
6. What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous
questions? �
� Scenario 3
In an attempt to deter speeders, the East Dakota State Police (EDSP) installs
video cameras on all of its freeway overpasses. The cameras are connected to
computers that can reliably detect cars traveling more than five miles per hour
above the speed limit. These computers have sophisticated image recognition
software that enables them to read license plate numbers and capture high-
resolution pictures of vehicle drivers. If the picture of the driver matches the
driver’s license photo of one of the registered owners of the car, the system issues
a speeding ticket to the driver, complete with photo evidence. Six months after
the system is put into operation, the number of people speeding on East Dakota
freeways is reduced by 90 percent.
The FBI asks the EDSP for real-time access to the information collected by
the video cameras. The EDSP complies with this request. Three months later,
the FBI uses this information to arrest five members of a terrorist organization.
54 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Questions
1. Did the East Dakota State Police do anything wrong?
2. Who benefited from the actions of the EDSP?
3. Who was harmed by the actions of the EDSP?
4. What other courses of action could the EDSP have taken to achieve its
objectives? Examine the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative
courses of action.
5. What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous
questions? �
� Scenario 4
You are the senior software engineer at a start-up company developing an
exciting new product that will allow salespeople to generate and email sales
quotes and customer invoices from their smartphones.
Your company’s sales force has led a major corporation to believe your
product will be available next week. Unfortunately, at this point the software still
contains quite a few bugs. The leader of the testing group has reported that all
of the known bugs appear to be minor, but it will take another month of testing
for his team to be confident the product contains no catastrophic errors.
Because of the fierce competition in the smartphone software industry, it is
critical that your company be “first to market.” To the best of your knowledge,
a well-established company will release a similar product in a few weeks. If its
product appears first, your start-up company will probably go out of business.
Questions
1. Should you recommend release of the product next week?
2. Who will benefit if the company follows your recommendation?
3. Who will be harmed if the company follows your recommendation?
4. Do you have an obligation to any group of people that may be affected by
your decision?
5. What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous
questions? �
Reflect on the process you used in each scenario to come up with your answers. How
did you decide if particular actions or decisions were right or wrong? Were your reasons
consistent from one case to the next? Did you use the same methodology in more than
one scenario? If someone disagreed with you on the answer to one of these questions,
how would you try to convince that person that your position makes more sense?
Ethics is the rational, systematic analysis of conduct that can cause benefit or harm
to other people. Because ethics is based in reason, people are required to explain why
they hold the opinions they do. This gives us the opportunity to compare ethical eval-
uations. When two people reach different conclusions, we can weigh the facts and the
reasoning process behind their conclusions to determine the stronger line of thinking.
2.1 Introduction 55
It’s important to note that ethics is focused on the voluntary, moral choices people
make because they have decided they ought to take one course of action rather than
an alternative. Ethics is not concerned about involuntary choices or choices outside the
moral realm.
For example, if I am ordering a new car, I may get to choose whether it is red, white,
green, or blue. This choice is not in the moral realm, because it does not involve benefit
or harm to other people.
Now, suppose I’m driving my new red car down a city street. A pedestrian, obscured
from my view by a parked car, runs out into traffic. In an attempt to miss the pedestrian,
I swerve, lose control of my car, and kill another pedestrian walking along the sidewalk.
While my action caused harm to another person, this is not an example of ethical
decision making, because my decision was a reflex action rather than a reasoned choice.
However, suppose I did not have full control of the car because I had been driving
while intoxicated. In that case the consequences of my voluntary choice to drink alcohol
before driving affected another moral being (the innocent pedestrian). Now the problem
has entered the realm of ethics.
2.1.3 Overview of Ethical Theories
The formal study of ethics goes back at least 2,400 years, to the Greek philosopher
Socrates. Socrates did not put any of his philosophy in writing, but his student Plato
did. In Plato’s dialogue called the Crito, imprisoned Socrates uses ethical reasoning to
explain why he ought to face an unjust death penalty rather than take advantage of an
opportunity to flee into exile with his family [3].
In the past two millennia, philosophers have proposed many ethical theories. In this
chapter we review some of them. How do we decide if a particular theory is useful? A
useful theory allows its proponents to examine moral problems, reach conclusions, and
defend those conclusions in front of a skeptical, yet open-minded audience (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3 A good ethical theory should enable you to make a persuasive, logical argument
to a diverse audience.
Randall
Highlight
56 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Suppose you and I are debating a moral problem in front of a nonpartisan crowd.
You have concluded that a particular course of action is right, while I believe it is wrong.
It is only natural for me to ask you, “Why do you think doing such-and-such is right?” If
you are unable to give any logical reasons why your position is correct, you are unlikely
to persuade anyone. On the other hand, if you can explain the chain of reasoning that
led you to your conclusion, you will be more likely to convince the audience that your
position is correct. At the very least you will help reveal where there are disputed facts
or values. Therefore, we will reject proposed ethical theories that are not based on
reasoning from facts or commonly accepted values.
In the following sections we consider nine ethical theories—nine frameworks for
moral decision making. We present the motivation or insight underlying each theory,
explain how it can be used to determine whether an action is right or wrong, and give
the “case for” and the “case against” the theory. The workable theories will be those
that make it possible for a person to present a persuasive, logical argument to a diverse
audience of skeptical, yet open-minded people.
The principal sources for these brief introductions to ethical theories are Ethical
Insights: A Brief Introduction by Douglas Birsch [4], The Elements of Moral Philosophy by
James Rachels [5], and On Virtue Ethics by Rosalind Hursthouse [6].
2.2 Subjective Relativism
Relativism is the theory that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong.
According to this theory, different individuals or groups of people can have completely
opposite views of a moral problem, and both can be right. Two particular kinds of
relativism we’ll discuss are subjective relativism and cultural relativism.
Subjective relativism holds that each person decides right and wrong for himself or
herself. This notion is captured in the popular expression, “What’s right for you may not
be right for me.”
2.2.1 The Case for Subjective Relativism
1. Well-meaning and intelligent people can have totally opposite opinions about moral
issues.
For example, consider the issue of legalized abortion in the United States. There
are a significant number of rational people on each side of the issue. Subjective
relativists would contend that the reason people cannot reach the same conclusion
is that morality is not like gravity; it is not something “out there” that rational
people can discover and try to understand. Instead, each of us creates his or her
own morality.
2. Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless.
Going back to the example of abortion, the debate in the United States has been
going on for more than 40 years. An agreement about whether abortion is right or
wrong may never be reached. Nobody is all-knowing. When faced with a difficult
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.2 Subjective Relativism 57
moral problem, who is to say which side is correct? If morality is relative, we do not
have to try to reconcile opposing views. Both sides are right.
2.2.2 The Case against Subjective Relativism
1. With subjective relativism the line between doing what you think is right and doing
what you want to do is not sharply drawn.
People are good at rationalizing their bad behavior. Subjective relativism provides
an ideal last line of defense for someone whose conduct is being questioned. When
pressed to explain a decision or action, a subjective relativist can reply, “Who are
you to tell me what I should and should not do?” If morality means doing whatever
you want to do, it doesn’t mean much, if it means anything at all.
2. By allowing each person to decide right and wrong for himself or herself, subjective
relativism makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people.
The fact is that some people have caused millions to suffer, while others have led
lives of great service to humanity. Suppose both Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa
spent their entire lives doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Do you
want to give both of them credit for living good lives?
A modification of the original formulation of subjective relativism might be, “I
can decide what’s right for me, as long as my actions don’t hurt anybody else.” That
solves the problem of Adolf Hitler versus Mother Teresa. However, as soon as you
introduce the idea that you shouldn’t harm others, you must come to an agreement
with others about what it means to harm someone. At this point the process is no
longer subjective or completely up to the individual. In other words, a statement of
the form, “I can decide what’s right for me, as long as my actions don’t hurt anyone
else,” is inconsistent with subjective relativism.
3. Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different things.
Some people may be attracted to relativism because they believe in tolerance. There
is a lot to be said for tolerance. It allows individuals in a pluralistic society like the
United States to live in harmony. However, tolerance is not the same thing as sub-
jective relativism. Subjective relativism holds that individuals decide for themselves
what is right and what is wrong. If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with you
if some people decide they want to be intolerant? What if a person decides that he
will only deal fairly with people of his own racial group? Note that any statement of
the form, “People ought to be tolerant,” is an example of a universal moral norm,
or rule. Relativism is based on the idea that there are no universal moral norms,
so a blanket statement about the need for tolerance is incompatible with subjective
relativism.
4. We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that allows people to make decisions
based on something other than reason.
If individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, they can reach
their conclusions by any means they see fit. They may choose to base their decisions
on something other than logic and reason, such as the rolling of dice or the turning
of tarot cards. This path is contrary to using logic and reason.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
58 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
If your goal is to persuade others that your solutions to actual moral problems are
correct, adopting subjective relativism is self-defeating because it is based on the idea
that each person decides for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong. Accord-
ing to subjective relativism, nobody’s conclusions are any more valid that anyone else’s,
no matter how these conclusions are drawn. Therefore, we reject subjective relativism as
a workable ethical theory.
2.3 Cultural Relativism
If subjective relativism is unworkable, what about different views of right and wrong
held by different societies at the same point in time, or those held by the same society at
different points in time?
In the modern era, anthropologists have collected evidence of societies with moral
codes markedly different from those of the societies of Europe and North America.
William Graham Sumner described the evolution of “folkways,” which he argues even-
tually become institutionalized into the moral guidelines of a society:
The first task of life is to live. . . . The struggle to maintain existence was not carried
on individually but in groups. Each profited by the other’s experience; hence there
was concurrence towards that which proved to be the most expedient. All at last
adopted the same way for the same purpose; hence the ways turned into customs
and became mass phenomena. Instincts were learned in connection with them. In
this way folkways arise. The young learn by tradition, imitation, and authority.
The folkways, at a time, provide for all the needs of life then and there. They are
uniform, universal in the group, imperative, and invariable. As time goes on, the
folkways become more and more arbitrary, positive, and imperative. If asked why
they act in a certain way in certain cases, primitive people always answer that it
is because they and their ancestors always have done so. . . . The morality of a
group at a time is the sum of the taboos and prescriptions in the folkways by which
right conduct is defined. . . . ‘Good’ mores are those which are well adapted to the
situation. ‘Bad’ mores are those which are not so well adapted. [7]
Cultural relativism is the ethical theory that the meaning of “right” and “wrong”
rests with a society’s actual moral guidelines. These guidelines vary from place to place
and from time to time.
Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars conducted a modern study that
reveals how notions of right and wrong vary widely from one society to another. Here is
a dilemma they posed to people from 46 different countries:
You are riding in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know he
was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area of the city where the maximum
allowed speed is 20 miles per hour. There are no witnesses other than you. His
lawyer says that if you testify under oath that he was driving only 20 miles per hour,
you will save him from serious consequences.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.3 Cultural Relativism 59
What right has your friend to expect you to protect him?
. My friend has a definite right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower
speed.
. He has some right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower speed.
. He has no right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower speed.
What do you think you would do in view of the obligations of a sworn witness
and the obligation to your friend?
. Testify that he was going 20 miles per hour.
. Not testify that he was going 20 miles per hour.1
About 90 percent of Norwegians would not testify to the lower speed and do not
believe that the person’s friend has a definite right to expect help. In contrast, only about
10 percent of Yugoslavians feel the same way. About three-quarters of Americans and
Canadians agree with the dominant Norwegian view, but Mexicans are fairly evenly
divided [8]. Cultural relativists say we ought to pay attention to these differences.
2.3.1 The Case for Cultural Relativism
1. Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines.
It’s unrealistic to assume that the same set of moral guidelines can be expected
to work for all human societies in every part of the world for all ages. Just think
about how our relationship with our environment has changed. For most of the past
10,000 years, human beings have spent most of their time trying to produce enough
food to survive. Thanks to science and technology, the human population of the
Earth has increased exponentially in the past century. The struggle for survival has
shifted away from people to the rest of Nature. Overpopulation has created a host
of environmental problems, such as the extinction of many species, the destruction
of fisheries in the world’s oceans, and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. People
must change their ideas about what is acceptable conduct and what is not, or they
will destroy the planet.
2. It is arrogant for one society to judge another.
Anthropologists have documented many important differences among societies
with respect to what they consider proper and improper moral conduct. We may
have more technology than people in other societies, but we are no more intelligent
than they are. It is arrogant for a person living in twenty-first-century Italy to judge
the actions of another person who lived in the Inca Empire in the fifteenth century.
1. From Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values, by Charles
Hampden-Turner, Fons Trompenaars, and David Lewis (ill.). Copyright © 2000 by Yale University Press.
Reprinted with permission [8].
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
60 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
2.3.2 The Case against Cultural Relativism
1. Just because two societies do have different views about right and wrong doesn’t imply
that they ought to have different views.
Perhaps one society has good guidelines and another has bad guidelines. Perhaps
neither society has good guidelines.
Suppose two societies are suffering from a severe drought. The first society con-
structs an aqueduct to carry water to the affected cities. The second society makes
human sacrifices to appease the rain god. Are both “solutions” equally acceptable?
No, they are not. Yet, if we accept cultural relativism, we cannot speak out against
this wrongdoing, because no person in one society can make any statements about
the morality of another society.
2. Cultural relativism does not explain how an individual determines the moral guidelines
of a particular society.
Suppose I am new to a society and I understand I am supposed to abide by its moral
guidelines. How do I determine what those guidelines are?
One approach would be to poll other people, but this begs the question. Here’s
why. Suppose I ask other people whether the society considers a particular action to
be morally acceptable. I’m not interested in knowing whether they feel personally
that the action is right or wrong. I want them to tell me whether the society as a
whole thinks the action is moral. That puts the people I poll in the same position
I’m in—trying to determine the moral guidelines of a society. How are they to know
whether the action is right or wrong?
Perhaps the guidelines are summarized in the society’s laws, but laws take time
to enact. Hence the legal code reflects at best the moral guidelines of the same
society at some point in the past, but that’s not the same society I am living in
today, because the morals of any society change over time. That leads us to our next
objection.
3. Cultural relativism does not explain how to determine right from wrong when there are
no cultural norms.
Sometimes different groups within a society disagree about whether a particular ac-
tion is right or wrong. This situation often occurs when a new technology emerges.
For example, the Internet has made possible massive exchanges of digitized infor-
mation. Millions of Americans seem to think sharing copyrighted music is okay, but
other groups insist this activity is nothing more than stealing. Who is correct?
4. Cultural relativism does not do a good job of characterizing actions when moral guide-
lines evolve.
Until the 1960s many southern American states had segregated universities. Today
these universities are integrated. This change in attitudes was accelerated by the
actions of a few brave people of color who challenged the status quo and enrolled in
universities that had been the exclusive preserve of white students. At the time these
students were doing what they “ought not” to have done; they were doing something
wrong according to the moral guidelines of the time. By today’s standards they did
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.3 Cultural Relativism 61
nothing wrong, and many people view them as heroic figures. Doesn’t it make more
sense to believe that their actions were the right thing to do all along?
5. Cultural relativism provides no framework for reconciliation between cultures in con-
flict.
Think about the culture of the Palestinians who have been crowded into refugee
camps in the Gaza Strip for more than 60 years. Some of these people are com-
pletely committed to an armed struggle against Israel. Meanwhile, some people in
Israel believe the Jewish state ought to be larger and are completely committed to
the expansion of settlements into the Gaza Strip. The values of each society lead to
actions that harm the other, yet cultural relativism says each society’s moral guide-
lines are right. Cultural relativism provides no way out—no way for the two sides
to find common ground.
6. The existence of many acceptable cultural practices does not imply that any cultural
practice would be acceptable.
Judging many options to be acceptable and then reaching the conclusion that any
option is acceptable is called the many/any fallacy. To illustrate this fallacy, consider
documentation styles for computer programs. There are many good ways to add
comments to a program; that does not mean that any commenting style is good.
It is false that all possible cultural practices have equal legitimacy. Certain
practices must be forbidden and others must be mandated if a society is to survive
[1]. This observation leads us directly to our next point.
7. Societies do, in fact, share certain core values.
While a superficial observation of the cultural practices of different societies may
lead you to believe they are quite different, a closer examination often reveals similar
values underlying these practices. James Rachels argues that all societies, in order to
maintain their existence, must have a set of core values [5]. For example, newborn
babies are helpless. A society must care for its infants if it wishes to continue. Hence
a core value of every society is that babies must be cared for. Communities rely
upon people being able to believe each other. Hence telling the truth is another
core value. Finally, in order to live together, people must not constantly be on guard
against attack from their community members. For this reason a prohibition against
murder is a core value of any society.
The existence of common values among all societies is a powerful response
to the contention that different social contexts demand different moral guidelines,
which is at the heart of the argument in favor of cultural relativism. Because societies
do share certain core values, there is reason to believe we could use these values as
a starting point in the creation of a universal ethical theory that would not have the
deficiencies of cultural relativism.
8. Cultural relativism is only indirectly based on reason.
As Sumner observed, many moral guidelines are a result of tradition. Traditions
develop because they meet a need, but once a tradition has been established, people
behave in a certain way because it’s what they’re supposed to do, not because they
understand the rationality deeply embedded within the tradition.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
62 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Cultural relativism has significant weaknesses as a tool for ethical persuasion. Ac-
cording to cultural relativism, the ethical evaluation of a moral problem made by a
person in one society may be meaningless when applied to the same moral problem
in another society. Cultural relativism suggests there are no universal moral guidelines.
It gives tradition more weight in ethical evaluations than facts and reason. For these
reasons, cultural relativism is not a powerful tool for constructing ethical evaluations
persuasive to a diverse audience, and we consider it no further.
2.4 Divine Command Theory
The three great religious traditions that arose in the Middle East—Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam—teach that a single God is the creator of the universe and that human beings
are part of God’s creation. Each of these religions has sacred writings containing God’s
revelation.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that God inspired the Torah. Here is a
selection of verses from Chapter 19 of the third book of the Torah, called Leviticus:
You shall each revere his mother and his father, and keep My sabbaths. When
you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges
of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your
vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for
the poor and the stranger. You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely
with one another. You shall not swear falsely by My name. You shall not defraud
your neighbor. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not
remain with you until morning. You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling
block before the blind. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself. [9]
The divine command theory is based on the idea that good actions are those aligned
with the will of God and bad actions are those contrary to the will of God. Since the holy
books contain God’s directions, we can use the holy books as moral decision-making
guides. God says we should revere our mothers and fathers, so revering our parents is
good. God says do not lie or steal, so lying and stealing are bad (Figure 2.4).
It is important to note that the divine command theory is subscribed to by some, but
not all, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Fundamentalists are more likely to consider holy
books authentic and authoritative. Most sects within these religious traditions augment
holy books with other sources when developing their moral codes.
2.4.1 The Case for the Divine Command Theory
1. We owe obedience to our Creator.
God is the creator of the universe. God created each one of us. We are dependent
upon God for our lives. For this reason, we are obligated to follow God’s rules.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.4 Divine Command Theory 63
Stealing is wrong.
Exodus 20:15
Figure 2.4 The divine command theory of ethics is based on two premises: good actions
are those actions aligned with the will of God, and God’s will has been revealed to us.
2. God is all-good and all-knowing.
God loves us and wants the best for us. God is omniscient; we are not. Because God
knows better than we do what we must do to be happy, we should align ourselves
with the will of God.
3. God is the ultimate authority.
Since most people are religious, they are more likely to submit to God’s law than
to a law made by people. Our goal is to create a society where everyone obeys the
moral laws. Therefore, our moral laws should be based on God’s directions to us.
2.4.2 The Case against the Divine Command Theory
1. There are many holy books, and some of their teachings disagree with each other.
There is no single holy book that is recognized by people of all faiths, and it is
unrealistic to assume everyone in a society will adopt the same religion. Even among
Christians there are different versions of the Bible. The Catholic Bible has six books
not found in the Protestant Bible. Some Protestant denominations rely upon the
King James version, but others use more modern translations. Every translation
has significant differences. Even when people read the same translation, they often
interpret the same verse in different ways.
2. It is unrealistic to assume a multicultural society will adopt a religion-based morality.
An obvious example is the United States. In the past two centuries, immigrants rep-
resenting virtually every race, creed, and culture have made America their home.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
64 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Some Americans are atheists. When a society is made up of people with different
religious beliefs, the society’s moral guidelines should emerge from a secular au-
thority, not a religious authority.
3. Some moral problems are not addressed directly in scripture.
For example, there are no verses in the Bible mentioning the Internet. When we
discuss moral problems arising from information technology, a proponent of the
divine command theory must resort to analogy. At this point the conclusion is based
not simply on what appears in the sacred text but also on the insight of the person
who invented the analogy. The holy book alone is not sufficient to solve the moral
problem.
4. It is fallacious to equate “the good” with “God.”
Religious people are likely to agree with the statement “God is good.” That does
not mean, however, that God and “the good” are exactly the same thing. Trying to
equate two related but distinct things is called the equivalence fallacy. Instead, the
statement “God is good” means there is an objective standard of goodness that God
meets perfectly.
Here’s another way to put the question. Is an action good because God com-
mands it, or does God command it because it’s good? This is an ancient question:
Plato raised it about 2,400 years ago in the Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. In this di-
alogue, Socrates concludes, “The gods love piety because it is pious, and it is not
pious because they love it” [10]. In other words, “the good” is something that exists
outside of God and was not created by God.
We can reason our way to the same conclusion. If good means “commanded by
God,” then good is arbitrary. Why should we praise God for being good if good is
whatever God wills? According to this view of the good, it doesn’t matter whether
God commanded, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” or “Thou shalt commit adul-
tery.” Either way, the command would have been good by definition. If you object
that there is no way God would command us to commit adultery because mari-
tal fidelity is good and adultery is bad, then you are proving our point: there is an
objective standard of right and wrong separate from God. That means we can talk
about the good without talking about God; we can have a nontheological discussion
of the good.
5. The divine command theory is based on obedience, not reason.
If good means “willed by God,” and if religious texts contain everything we need
to know about what God wills, then there is no room left for collecting and an-
alyzing facts. Hence the divine command theory is not based on reaching sound
conclusions from premises through logical reasoning. There is no need for a person
to question a commandment. The instruction is right because it’s commanded by
God, period.
Consider the story of Abraham in the book of Genesis. God commands Abra-
ham to take his only son, Isaac, up on a mountain, kill him, and make of him a
burnt offering. Abraham obeys God’s command and is ready to kill Isaac with his
knife when an angel calls down and tells him not to harm the boy. Because he does
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.5 Ethical Egoism 65
not withhold his only son from God, God blesses Abraham [11]. Earlier in Gene-
sis God condemns Cain for killing Abel [12]. How, then, can Abraham’s sacrifice of
Isaac be considered good? To devout readers, the logic of God’s command is irrel-
evant to this story. Abraham is a good person, a heroic model of faith, because he
demonstrated his obedience to the will of God.
In the divine command theory, moral guidelines are not the result of a logical
progression from a set of underlying principles, and this is a significant problem. While
you may choose to live your life so that your actions are aligned with God’s will, the
divine command theory often fails to produce arguments that can persuade skeptical
listeners whose religious beliefs are different. Hence we conclude the divine command
theory is not a powerful weapon for ethical debate in a secular society, and we reject it
as a workable theory for the purposes of this book.
2.5 Ethical Egoism
In sharp contrast to the divine command theory, which promotes a concern for others
with scriptural injunctions such as “Love your neighbor as yourself,” ethical egoism is
the philosophy that each person should focus exclusively on his or her self-interest. In
other words, according to ethical egoism, the morally right action for a person to take
in a particular situation is the action that will provide that person with the maximum
long-term benefit.
This idea may sound familiar to you if you have read The Fountainhead or Atlas
Shrugged. The author of these novels, Ayn Rand, espoused a philosophy akin to ethical
egoism (although you should not view this section’s description of ethical egoism as a
summary of her thinking). Rand’s moral philosophy “holds man’s life as the standard of
value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man” [13, p. 27]. With
respect to human relationships, she wrote, “The principle of trade is the only rational
ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public,
spiritual and material” [13, p. 34].
Ethical egoism does not prohibit acting to help someone else, but assisting another
is the right thing to do if and only if it is in the helper’s own long-term best interest.
Here’s an example from the writings of Douglas Birsch [4]. Suppose I depend upon a
friend to give me a ride to work every day. If my friend’s car breaks down and she doesn’t
have $100 to fix it, I ought to loan her the money. Although I’m out $100 until she pays
me back, I’m better off giving her the loan because I’m still able to travel to work and
make money. If I don’t lend her the money, I’ll lose my income. Lending $100 to my
friend is the right thing to do because it provides me the maximum overall benefit.
2.5.1 The Case for Ethical Egoism
1. Ethical egoism is a practical moral philosophy.
We are naturally inclined to do what’s best for ourselves because each of us has only
one life to live, and we want to make the best of it. Unlike other moral codes that
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
66 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
ask us to sacrifice our own well-being for the good of other people, ethical egoism
recognizes that we should focus on our own well-being.
2. It’s better to let other people take care of themselves.
We can’t know for sure what is good for someone else. All too often, a “good deed”
backfires and actually does more harm than good. Even when people appreciate
something done of their behalf, it’s not healthy. Dependence upon the charity of
others leads to a loss of self-esteem. In contrast, people who accomplish things
through their own efforts have higher self-esteem and are able to interact with other
successful people as equals.
3. The community can benefit when individuals put their well-being first.
When individuals act in their own self-interest, they often benefit not only them-
selves but others as well. For example, successful entrepreneurs may make a lot of
money for themselves, but they also create jobs that strengthen the economy.
4. Other moral principles are rooted in the principle of self-interest.
Ethical egoism is a rational philosophy. Any rational person will figure out that it
doesn’t make sense to go around breaking promises, because eventually people will
realize that the promise-breaker cannot be trusted, and they will refuse to cooperate
with that person. Therefore, it’s not in a person’s long-term self-interest to break
promises. Likewise, it’s a bad idea to lie to other people or cheat other people
because the long-term consequences of lying and cheating are detrimental to the
person doing these things. For this reason, it can be seen that other well-known
moral principles are actually rooted in the principle of self-interest.
2.5.2 The Case against Ethical Egoism
1. An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral philosophy.
The fact that it may be easier to live by a particular moral philosophy is no proof
that it is the best moral philosophy to live by. Besides, the statement that ethical
egoism aligns with our natural inclination to do what’s best for ourselves ignores
the fact that people often find it difficult to pass up short-term pleasures (such as
partying) in order achieve goals that will most likely result in long-term benefits
(such as passing the classes needed to earn a college degree).
2. We do, in fact, know a lot about what is good for someone else.
As we noted at the beginning of the chapter, practically everyone shares the “core
values” of life, happiness, and the ability to accomplish goals. It’s not that hard to
figure out what would help another. The question is, how are we going to respond
to that person’s need? Charity usually doesn’t lead to dependence; rather, it gives
someone the opportunity to become more independent. Consider, for example,
how a scholarship can provide a bright high school student from a poor family with
a path to a university degree, a well-paying job, and self-sufficiency.
3. A self-interested focus can lead to blatantly immoral behavior.
Here is a true story related by James Rachels [14]. An affluent doctor in a small
Southern town in the 1970s was visited by a poor, uneducated African American
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.6 Kantianism 67
woman, who had a variety of minor complaints. The doctor quickly determined
that the woman was suffering from malnutrition. He knew that she worked a variety
of menial jobs, but earned very little money to support herself or her children.
After spending no more than five minutes with her, and doing nothing for her, the
doctor told her the charge would be $25. The woman had only $12 to her name,
so the doctor took the $12 as payment, leaving the woman with no money to buy
food. There were no negative consequences to the doctor as a result of his action.
According to the theory of ethical egoism, the doctor did the right thing: he was
only supposed to take his own interest into account, and receiving $12 from the
woman was to his advantage. This answer, however, is incorrect; what the doctor
did was morally reprehensible.
4. Other moral principles are superior to the principle of self-interest.
Suppose you have the opportunity to save a drowning person at the cost of getting
one of your shirtsleeves wet [4]. According to the theory of ethical egoism, saving
a life is the right thing to do if and only if that action will provide you with the
maximum benefit. Possible benefits from saving a drowning person include earning
that person’s undying gratitude and gaining favorable publicity. But isn’t this a
backward and degrading way of evaluating the action? Doesn’t it make a lot more
sense to consider the action in light of the value of a human life? If you have
the opportunity to save a human life with no signficant negative consequences
to yourself, you should do it, even if your action is not rewarded. This example
demonstrates that the principle of preserving life is superior to the principle of self-
interest.
5. People who take the good of others into account live happier lives.
In the Framingham Heart Study, which followed 5,000 individuals over a 20-year
period, scientists discovered that happiness spreads through close relationships with
family members, friends, and neighbors [15]. In order to create and maintain close
relationships with other people, it is necessary to consider what is good for them.
Ethical egoism does not respect the ethical point of view: it does not recognize that
in order to reap the benefits of living in community, individuals must consider the good
of other community members. For this reason we reject ethical egoism as a workable
ethical theory.
2.6 Kantianism
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724–1804). Kant spent his entire life in or near Königsberg in East Prussia,
where he was a professor at the university. Kant believed that people’s actions ought
to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal. He held that in
order to apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of morality must itself be
based on reason. While many of the moral laws Kant describes can also be found in the
Bible, Kant’s methodology allows these laws to be derived through a reasoning process.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
68 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
A Kantian is able to go beyond simply stating that an action is right or wrong by citing
chapter and verse; a Kantian can explain why it is right or wrong.
2.6.1 Good Will and the Categorical Imperative
Kant begins his inquiry by asking, “What is always good without qualification?” Many
things, such as intelligence and courage, can be good, but they can also be used in a way
that is harmful. For example, a group of gangsters may use intelligence and courage to
rob a bank. Kant’s conclusion is that the only thing in the world that can be called good
without qualification is a good will. People with good will often accomplish good deeds,
but producing beneficial outcomes is not what makes a good will good. A good will is
good in and of itself. Even if a person’s best efforts at doing good should fall short and
cause harm, the good will behind the efforts is still good. Since a good will is the only
thing that is universally good, the proper function of reason is to cultivate a will that is
good in itself.
Most of us have probably had many experiences when we’ve been torn between what
we want to do and what we ought to do. According to Kant, what we want to do is
of no importance. Our focus should be on what we ought to do. Our sense of “ought
to” is called dutifulness [16]. A dutiful person feels compelled to act in a certain way
out of respect for some moral rule. Our will, then, should be grounded in a conception
of moral rules. The moral value of an action depends upon the underlying moral rule.
It is critical, therefore, that we be able to determine if our actions are grounded in an
appropriate moral rule.
What makes a moral rule appropriate? To enable us to answer this question, Kant
proposes the Categorical Imperative.
�
Categorical Imperative (First Formulation)
Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be
universal moral laws.
�
To illustrate the Categorical Imperative, Kant poses the problem of an individual in
a difficult situation who must decide if he will make a promise with the intention of later
breaking it. The translation of this moral rule could be as follows: “A person may make
a false promise when that is the only way to escape a difficult situation.”
To evaluate this moral rule, we universalize it. What would happen if everybody in
extreme circumstances made false promises? If that were the case, nobody would believe
promises, and it would be impossible for our individual in distress to make a promise
that anyone believed. The moral rule self-destructs when we try to make it a universal
law. Therefore, it is wrong for a person in distress to make a promise with the intention
of breaking it.
It is important to see that Kant is not arguing that the consequences of every-
body breaking promises would be to undermine interpersonal relationships, increase
violence, and make people miserable, and that is why we cannot imagine turning our
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.6 Kantianism 69
hypothetical moral rule into a universal law. Rather, Kant is saying that simply willing
that our moral rule become a universal law produces a logical contradiction.
Let’s see how. Suppose I am the person who can escape from a difficult situation by
making a promise I intend to break later on. On the one hand, it is my will that I be able
to make a promise that is believed. After all, that’s what promises are for. If my promise
isn’t believed, I won’t be able to get out of the difficult situation I am in. But when I
universalize the moral rule, I am willing that everybody be able to break promises. If
that were a reality, then promises would not be believable, which means there would be
no such thing as a promise [17]. If there were no such thing as a promise, I would not
be able to make a promise to get myself out of a difficult situation. Trying to universalize
our proposed moral rule leads to a contradiction.
Here’s another way to see why the proposed action is wrong. In order for my false
promise to be believed, I want everyone except myself to be truthful all the time. Because
there is a contradiction between what I wish to do and how I expect others in a similar
situation to act, I know that what I am considering doing is wrong.
If you are wondering if it is morally acceptable to do something to someone else,
reverse roles. What would you think if that person did the same thing to you? If you
cannot wish to be treated that way by another, you have evidence that your will to treat
another person that way violates the Categorical Imperative.
Kant also presents a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which many
people find easier to work with.
�
Categorical Imperative (Second Formulation)
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in
themselves, and never only as a means to an end.
�
To use popular terminology, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative
says it is wrong for one person to “use” another (Figure 2.5). Instead, every interaction
with other people must respect them as rational beings.
Here is an example that illustrates how we can apply the second formulation. Sup-
pose I manage a semiconductor fabrication plant for a large corporation. The plant
manufactures integrated circuits on 8-inch wafers. I know that in one year the corpora-
tion is going to shut down the plant and move all of its production to other sites capable
of producing 12-inch wafers. In the meantime, I need new employees to work in the
clean room. Many of the best applicants are from out of state. I am afraid that if they
knew the plant was going to shut down next year, they would not want to go through the
hassle and expense of moving to this area. If that happens, I’ll have to hire less qualified
local workers. Should I disclose this information to the job applicants?
According to the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, I have an obli-
gation to inform the applicants, since I know this information is likely to influence their
decision. If I deny them this information, I am treating them as a means to an end (a
way to get wafers produced), not as ends in themselves (rational beings).
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
70 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Figure 2.5 The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for
one person to use himself or another person solely as a means to an end.
2.6.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Kantianism
� Scenario
Carla is a single mother who is working hard to complete her college education
while taking care of her daughter. Carla has a full-time job and is taking two
evening courses per semester. If she can pass both courses this semester, she will
graduate. She knows her child will benefit if she can spend more time at home.
One of her required classes is modern European history. In addition to
the midterm and final examinations, the professor assigns four lengthy reports,
which is far more than the usual amount of work required for a single class.
Students must submit all four reports in order to pass the class.
Carla earns an A on each of her first three reports. At the end of the term,
she is required to put in a lot of overtime where she works. She simply does not
have time to research and write the final report. Carla uses the Web to identify a
company that sells term papers. She purchases a report from the company and
submits it as her own work.
Was Carla’s action morally justifiable?
Analysis
Many times it is easier to use the second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view, so that’s
where we begin. By submitting another person’s work as her own, Carla treated
her professor as a means to an end. She deceived her professor with the goal
of getting credit for someone else’s work. It was wrong for Carla to treat the
professor as a grade-generating machine rather than a rational agent with whom
she could have communicated her unusual circumstances.
We can also look at this problem using the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative. Carla wants to be able to get credit for turning in a report
2.6 Kantianism 71
she has purchased. A proposed moral rule might be, “I may claim academic
credit for a report written by someone else.” However, if everyone followed this
rule, reports would cease to be credible indicators of the students’ knowledge,
and professors would not give academic credit for reports. Her proposed moral
rule is self-defeating. Therefore, it is wrong for Carla to purchase a report and
turn it in as her own work.
Commentary
Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral problem focuses on the will behind
the action. It asks the question, “What was Carla trying to do when she submitted
under her own name a term paper written by someone else?” The analysis ignores
extenuating circumstances that non-Kantians may cite to justify her action. �
2.6.3 The Case for Kantianism
1. The Categorical Imperative aligns with the common moral concern, “What if every-
body acted that way?”
According to Kantianism, it is wrong for you to act in a particular way if you cannot
wish everyone in a similar circumstance to do the same thing. This is a mainstream,
commonsensical, and fair perspective.
2. Kantianism produces universal moral guidelines.
Kantianism aligns with the intuition of many people that the same morality ought
to apply to all people for all of history. These guidelines allow us to make clear moral
judgments. For example, one such judgment might be the following: “Sacrificing
living human beings to appease the gods is wrong.” It is wrong in Europe in the
twenty-first century, and it was wrong in South America in the fifteenth century.
3. All persons are treated as moral equals.
A popular belief is that “all people are created equal.” Because it holds that people in
similar situations should be treated in similar ways, Kantianism provides an ethical
framework to combat discrimination.
2.6.4 The Case against Kantianism
1. Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes an action.
Kant holds that every action is motivated from a rule. The appropriate rule de-
pends upon how we characterize the action. Once we know the rule, we can test
its value using the Categorical Imperative. What happens when no single rule fully
explains the situation? Douglas Birsch gives this example: Suppose I’m considering
stealing food from a grocery store to feed my starving children [4]. How should I
characterize this action? Am I stealing? Am I caring for my children? Am I trying
to save the lives of innocent people? Until I characterize my action, I cannot de-
termine the rule and test it against the Categorical Imperative. Yet no single one of
these ways of characterizing the action seems to capture the ethical problem in its
fullness.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
72 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
2. Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict between rules.
One way to address the previous problem is to allow multiple rules to be relevant
to a particular action. In the previous example, we might say that the relevant rules
are (1) you should not steal and (2) you should try to save the lives of innocent
persons. Now the question becomes, if we have a conflict between two rules, which
one should we follow?
Kant distinguished between perfect duties, duties we are obliged to fulfill in
each instance, and imperfect duties, duties we are obliged to fulfill in general but
not in every instance. For example, you have a perfect duty to tell the truth. That
means you must always tell the truth without exception. On the other hand, you
have an imperfect duty to develop your talents. If you happen to have a talent for
music, you ought to find a way to develop it, but you do not have to take up every
instrument in the orchestra.
If we have a conflict between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty, the perfect
duty must prevail. Returning to our example, we have a perfect duty not to steal.
In contrast, we have only an imperfect duty to help others. Therefore, according to
Kant, it is wrong to steal bread to feed my starving children.
In this case we were fortunate because the conflict was between a perfect duty
and an imperfect duty. In those cases where there is a conflict between perfect duties,
Kantianism does not provide us a way to choose between them.
3. Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect duties.
Common sense tells us that sometimes we ought to “bend” the rules a bit if we want
to get along with other people. For example, suppose your mother asks you if you
like her new haircut, and you think it is the ugliest haircut you have ever seen. What
should you say? Common sense dictates that there is no point in criticizing your
mother’s hair. She certainly isn’t going to get her hair uncut, no matter what you
say. If you compliment her, she will be happy, and if you criticize her looks, she will
be angry and hurt. She expects you to say something complimentary, even if you
don’t mean it. There just seems to be no downside to lying. Yet a Kantian would
argue that lying is always wrong because we have a perfect duty to tell the truth.
Any ethical theory so unbending is not going to be useful for solving “real-world”
problems.
While these objections point out weaknesses with Kantianism, the theory does
support moral decision making based on logical reasoning from facts and commonly
held values. It is culture neutral and treats all humans as equals. Hence it meets our
criteria for a workable ethical theory, and we will use it as a way of evaluating moral
problems in the rest of the book.
2.7 Act Utilitarianism
The English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873) proposed a theory that is in sharp contrast to Kantianism. According to Bentham
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.7 Act Utilitarianism 73
and Mill, an action is good if its benefits exceed its harms, and an action is bad if its
harms exceed its benefits. Their ethical theory, called utilitarianism, is based upon the
principle of utility, also called the Greatest Happiness Principle.
2.7.1 Principle of Utility
Utility is the tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an
individual or a community. Depending on the circumstances, you may think of “happi-
ness” as advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure, and “unhappiness” as disadvantage, cost,
evil, or pain.
�
Principle of Utility (Greatest Happiness Principle)
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the
total happiness of the affected parties.
�
We can use the principle of utility as a yardstick to judge all actions in the moral
realm. Suppose in a particular situation we have a set of possible actions. For each
possible action, we must determine, for each affected person, the increase or decrease
in that person’s happiness and then add up all of these values to reach a grand total: the
overall increase or decrease in happiness caused by that particular action (Figure 2.6).
We repeat this procedure for every action in the set of possible actions. The moral action
is the one that produces the maximum increase in happiness. (If every possible action
results in a decrease in happiness, then the moral action is the one that minimizes the
decrease in happiness.)
Note that the morality of an action has nothing to do with the attitude behind the
action. Bentham writes, “There is no such thing as any sort of motive that is in itself a
GO
OD BAD
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
Harm
Harm Harm
Figure 2.6 Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility, which states that an action is
good (or bad) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected
parties.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
74 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
bad one. If [motives] are good or bad, it is only on account of their effects” [18]. We call
utilitarianism a consequentialist theory, because the focus is on the consequences of an
action.
Act utilitarianism is the ethical theory that an action is good if its net effect (over all
affected beings) is to produce more happiness than unhappiness. Suppose we measure
pleasure as a positive number and pain as a negative number. To make a moral evaluation
of an action, we simply add up, over all affected beings, the change in their happiness. If
the sum is positive, the action is good. If the sum is negative, the action is bad.
Did you notice that I used the word “beings” rather than “persons” in the previous
paragraph? An important decision an act utilitarian must make is determining which
beings are considered to be morally significant. Bentham noted that at one time only
adult white males were considered morally significant beings. Bentham felt that any
being that can experience pain and pleasure ought to be seen as morally significant.
Certainly women and people of color are morally significant beings by this definition,
but in addition all mammals (and perhaps other animals) are morally significant beings,
because they, too, can experience pain and pleasure. Of course, as the number of morally
significant beings increases, the difficulty of evaluating the consequences of an action
also increases. It means, for example, that the environmental impacts of decisions must
often be included when performing the utilitarian calculus.
2.7.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Act Utilitarianism
� Scenario
A state is considering replacing a curvy stretch of highway that passes along the
outskirts of a large city. Would building the highway be a good action?
Analysis
To perform the analysis of this problem, we must determine who is affected
and the effects of the highway construction on them. Our analysis is in terms of
dollars and cents. For this reason we’ll use the terms “benefit” and “cost” instead
of “happiness” and “unhappiness.”
About 150 houses lie on or very near the proposed path of the new,
straighter section of highway. Using its power of eminent domain, the state
can condemn these properties. It would cost the state $20 million to provide
fair compensation to the homeowners. Constructing the new highway, which
is three miles long, would cost the taxpayers of the state another $10 million.
Suppose the environmental impact of the new highway in terms of lost habitat
for morally significant animal species is valued at $1 million.
Every weekday, 15,000 cars are expected to travel on this section of highway,
which is one mile shorter than the curvy highway it replaces. Assuming it costs
40 cents per mile to operate a motor vehicle, construction of the new highway
will save drivers $6,000 per weekday in operating costs. The highway has an
expected operating lifetime of 25 years. Over a 25-year period, the expected total
savings to drivers will be $39 million.
We’ll assume the highway project will have no positive or negative effects on
any other people. Since the overall cost of the new highway is $31 million and
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.7 Act Utilitarianism 75
the benefit of the new highway is $39 million, building the highway would be a
good action.
Commentary
Performing the benefit/cost (or happiness/unhappiness) calculations is crucial to
the utilitarian approach, yet it can be controversial. In our example, we translated
everything into dollars and cents. Was that reasonable? Neighborhoods are the
site of many important relationships. We did not assign a value to the harm the
proposed highway would do to these neighborhoods. There is a good chance
that many of the homeowners would be angry about being forced out of their
houses, even if they were paid a fair price for their properties. How do we put a
dollar value on their emotional distress? On the other hand, we can’t add apples
and oranges. Translating everything into dollars and cents is one way to put
everything into common units. �
Bentham acknowledged that a complete analysis must look beyond simple benefits
and harms. Not all benefits have equal weight. To measure them, he proposed seven
attributes that can be used to increase or decrease the weight of a particular pleasure or
pain:
. Intensity: magnitude of the experience
. Duration: how long the experience lasts
. Certainty: probability it will actually happen
. Propinquity: how close the experience is in space and time
. Fecundity: its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind
. Purity: extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain or vice versa
. Extent: number of people affected
As you can see, performing a complete calculation for a particular moral problem can
be a daunting prospect!
2.7.3 The Case for Act Utilitarianism
1. It focuses on happiness.
By relying upon the Greatest Happiness Principle as the yardstick for measuring
moral behavior, utilitarianism fits the intuition of many people that the purpose of
life is to be happy.
2. It is practical.
The utilitarian calculus provides a straightforward way to determine the right
course of action to take. Start by identifying the set of possible alternatives. Next,
consider each of the alternatives in turn. For each alternative, total up the antici-
pated positive and negative consequences to all of the affected parties resulting from
the action. Finally, identify the alternative with the maximum total. That alternative
is the right action to take. This process, conducted in a open manner in which all
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
76 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
the information is made available to all of the key stakeholders, is a good way for a
diverse group of people to come to a collective decision about a controversial topic.
For example, suppose your state needs to build a new prison because the num-
ber of prisoners is growing. Everybody understands the prison must be built some-
where in the state, but nobody wants the prison in their neighborhood. A panel of
trusted citizens considers a variety of siting options and, after a series of public hear-
ings to gather evidence, weighs the pluses and minuses of each location. At the end
of the process, the panel makes public the individual scores and grand totals and
recommends the site with the highest grand total. While some will be unhappy at
the prospect of a prison being built near their homes, an open and impartial process
can speed their acceptance of the decision.
3. It is comprehensive.
Act utilitarianism allows the moral agent to take into account all the elements of a
particular situation. Do you remember the problem of having to decide what to say
about your mother’s awful haircut? Utilitarianism allows you to take into account
the emotional distress that telling the truth would cause to you and your mother.
That harm could tilt the balance toward telling your mother what she wants to hear.
2.7.4 The Case against Act Utilitarianism
1. When performing the utilitarian calculus, it is not clear where to draw the line, yet
where we draw the line can change the outcome of our evaluation.
In order to perform our calculation of total net happiness produced by an action, we
must determine whom to include in our calculation and how far into the future to
consider the consequences. In our highway example, we counted the people who
lost their homes and the people who would travel the new highway in the next
25 years. The proposed highway may cut neighborhoods in two, making it more
difficult for some children to get to school, but we did not factor in consequences
for neighbors. The highway may cause people to change their commutes, increasing
traffic congestion in other parts of town, but we did not count those people either.
The highway may be in existence more than 25 years, but we didn’t look beyond that
date. We cannot include all morally relevant beings for all time into the future. We
must draw the line somewhere. Deciding where to draw the line can be a difficult
problem.
2. It is not practical to put so much energy into every moral decision.
Correctly performing the utilitarian calculus requires a great deal of time and effort.
It seems unrealistic that everyone would go to so much trouble every time they were
faced with a moral problem.
A response to this criticism is that act utilitarians are free to come up with moral
“rules of thumb.” For example, a moral rule of thumb might be, “It is wrong to
lie.” In most situations it will be obvious this is the right thing to do, even without
performing the complete utilitarian calculus. However, an act utilitarian always
reserves the right to go against the rule of thumb if particular circumstances should
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.7 Act Utilitarianism 77
warrant it. In these cases, the act utilitarian will perform a detailed analysis of the
consequences to determine the best course of action.
3. Act utilitarianism ignores our innate sense of duty.
Utilitarianism seems to be at odds with how ordinary people make moral decisions.
People often act out of a sense of duty or obligation, yet the act utilitarian theory
gives no weight to these notions. Instead, all that matters are the consequences of
the action.
W. D. Ross gives the following example [19]. Suppose I’ve made a promise to
A. If I keep my word, I will perform an action that produces 1,000 units of good for
him. If I break my promise, I will be able to perform an action that produces 1,001
units of good for B. According to act utilitarianism, I ought to break my promise to
A and produce 1,001 units of good for B. Yet most people would say the right thing
for me to do is keep my word.
Note that it does no good for an act utilitarian to come back and say that
the hard feelings caused by breaking my word to A will have a negative impact on
total happiness of −N units, because all I have to do is change the scenario so that
breaking my promise to A enables me to produce 1,001 + N units of good for B.
We’ve arrived at the same result: breaking my promise results in 1 more unit of good
than keeping my word. The real issue is that utilitarianism forces us to reduce all
consequences to a positive or negative number. “Doing the right thing” has a value
that is difficult to quantify.
4. We cannot predict with certainty the consequences of an action.
In doing the utilitarian calculus, we can identify possible consequences of an action,
but we may misjudge the certainty, intensity, and duration of these consequences.
The action may have other unforeseen consequences that we forget to include in our
calculation. These errors may cause us to choose the wrong course of action.
5. Act utilitarianism is susceptible to the problem of moral luck.
As we noted in the previous point, sometimes actions have unforeseen conse-
quences. Is it right for the moral worth of an action to depend solely on its con-
sequences when these consequences are not fully under the control of the moral
agent? This is called the problem of moral luck.
Suppose I hear that one of my aunts is in the hospital, and I send her a bouquet
of flowers. After the bouquet is delivered, she suffers a violent allergic reaction
to one of the exotic flowers in the floral arrangement, extending her stay in the
hospital. My gift gave my aunt a bad case of hives and a much larger hospital bill.
Since my action had far more negative consequences than positive consequences, an
act utilitarian would say my action was bad. That doesn’t seem fair.
Two additional arguments have been raised against utilitarianism in general. We’ll
save these arguments for the end of the section on rule utilitarianism.
While it is not perfect, act utilitarianism is an objective, rational ethical theory that
allows a person to explain why a particular action is right or wrong. It joins Kantianism
on our list of workable ethical theories we can use to evaluate moral problems.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
78 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
2.8 Rule Utilitarianism
The weaknesses of act utilitarianism have led some philosophers to develop another
ethical theory based on the principle of utility. This theory is called rule utilitarianism.
Some philosophers have concluded that John Stuart Mill was actually a rule utilitarian,
but others disagree.
2.8.1 Basis of Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is the ethical theory that holds that we ought to adopt those moral
rules that, if followed by everyone, lead to the greatest increase in total happiness over
all affected parties. Hence a rule utilitarian applies the principle of utility to moral rules,
while an act utilitarian applies the principle of utility to individual moral actions.
Both rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are focused on rules, and the rules these
two ethical theories derive may have significant overlap. However, the two ethical theo-
ries derive moral rules in completely different ways. A rule utilitarian chooses to follow
a moral rule because its universal adoption would result in the greatest net increase in
happiness. A Kantian follows a moral rule because it is in accord with the Categorical Im-
perative: all human beings are to be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to
an end. In other words, the rule utilitarian is looking at the consequences of the action,
while the Kantian is looking at the will motivating the action.
2.8.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Rule Utilitarianism
� Scenario
A worm is a self-contained program that spreads through a computer network by
taking advantage of security holes in the computers connected to the network. In
August 2003, the Blaster worm infected many computers running the Windows
2000, Windows NT, and Windows XP operating systems. The Blaster worm
caused computers it infected to reboot every few minutes.
Soon another worm was exploiting the same security hole in Windows to
spread through the Internet. However, the purpose of the new worm, named
Nachi, was benevolent. Since Nachi took advantage of the same security hole as
Blaster, it could not infect computers that were immune to the Blaster worm.
Once Nachi gained access to a computer with the security hole, it located and
destroyed copies of the Blaster worm. It also automatically downloaded from
Microsoft a patch to the operating system software that would fix the security
problem. Finally, it used the computer as a launching pad to seek out other
Windows PCs with the security hole.
Was the action of the person who released the Nachi worm morally right or
wrong?
Analysis
To analyze this moral problem from a rule utilitarian point of view, we must
think of an appropriate moral rule and determine if its universal adoption would
increase the happiness of the affected parties. In this case, an appropriate moral
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.8 Rule Utilitarianism 79
rule might be the following: “If I can write and release a helpful worm that
improves the security of the computers it infects, I should do so.”
What would be the benefits if everyone followed the proposed moral rule?
Many people do not keep their computers up to date with the latest patches
to the operating system. They would benefit from a worm that automatically
removed their network vulnerabilities.
What harm would be caused by the universal adoption of the rule? If
everyone followed this rule, the appearance of every new harmful worm would
be followed by the release of many other worms designed to eradicate the
harmful worm. Worms make networks less usable by creating a lot of extra
network traffic. For example, the Nachi worm disabled networks of Diebold
ATM machines at two financial institutions [20]. The universal adoption of
the moral rule would reduce the usefulness of the Internet while the various
“helpful” worms were circulating.
Another negative consequence would be potential harm done to computers
by the supposedly helpful worms. Even worms designed to be benevolent may
contain bugs. If many people are releasing worms, there is a good chance some
of the worms may accidentally harm data or programs on the computers they
infect.
A third harmful consequence would be the extra work placed on system
administrators. When system administrators detect a new worm, it is not
immediately obvious whether the worm is harmful or beneficial. Hence the
prudent response of system administrators is to combat every new worm that
attacks their computers. If the proposed moral rule were adopted, more worms
would be released, forcing system administrators to spend more of their time
fighting worms [21].
In conclusion, the harms caused by the universal adoption of this moral
rule appear to outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the action of the person who
released the Nachi worm is morally wrong. �
2.8.3 The Case for Rule Utilitarianism
1. Not every moral decision requires performing the utilitarian calculus.
A person who relies on rules of behavior does not have to spend a lot of time and
effort analyzing every particular moral action in order to determine if it is right or
wrong.
2. Exceptional situations do not overthrow moral rules.
Remember the problem of choosing between keeping a promise to A and producing
1,000 units of good for A, or breaking the promise to A and producing 1,001 units of
good for B? A rule utilitarian would not be trapped on the horns of this dilemma. A
rule utilitarian would reason that the long-term consequences of everyone keeping
their promises produce more good than giving everyone the liberty to break their
promises, so in this situation a rule utilitarian would conclude the right thing to do
is to keep the promise to A.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
80 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
3. Rule utilitarianism solves the problem of moral luck.
Since it is interested in the typical result of an action, the highly unusual result does
not affect the goodness of an action. A rule utilitarian would conclude that sending
flowers to people in the hospital is a good action.
4. Rule utilitarianism reduces the problem of bias.
A weakness of act utilitarianism is that it creates the temptation to perform a biased
analysis. By asking, “Is it okay for me to do this?” an act utilitarian may conclude the
action is acceptable by consciously or unconsciously inflating the personal benefits
and/or deflating the anticipated harms to others. In contrast, a rule utilitarian must
ask the question, “Is it okay for everyone in a similar circumstance to do this?” The
person who answers the latter question is more likely to place appropriate weights
on the benefits and harms of the action.
5. It appeals to a wide cross section of society.
Bernard Gert points out that utilitarianism is “paradoxically, the kind of moral
theory usually held by people who claim that they have no moral theory. Their
view is often expressed in phrases like the following: ‘It is all right to do anything
as long as no one gets hurt,’ ‘It is the actual consequences that count, not some silly
rules,’ or ‘What is important is that things turn out for the best, not how one goes
about making that happen.’ On the moral system, it is not the consequences of the
particular violation that are decisive in determining its justifiability, but rather the
consequences of such a violation being publicly allowed” [22]. In other words, an
action is justifiable if allowing that action would, as a rule, bring about greater net
happiness than forbidding that action.
2.8.4 The Case against Utilitarianism in General
As we have just seen, rule utilitarianism seems to solve several problems associated with
act utilitarianism. However, two criticisms have been leveled at utilitarian theories in
general. These problems are shared by both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
1. Utilitarianism forces us to use a single scale or measure to evaluate completely different
kinds of consequences.
In order to perform the utilitarian calculus, all consequences must be put into the
same units. Otherwise we cannot add them up. For example, if we are going to
determine the total amount of happiness resulting from the construction of a new
highway, many of the costs and benefits (such as construction costs and the gas
expenses of car drivers) are easily expressed in dollars. Other costs and benefits
are intangible, but we must express them in terms of dollars in order to find the
total amount of happiness created or destroyed as a result of the project. Suppose a
sociologist informs the state that if it condemns 150 homes, it is likely to cause five
divorces among the families being displaced. How do we assign a dollar value to that
unfortunate consequence? In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the
value of a human life. How can the value of a human life be reduced to an amount
of money?
2. Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.9 Social Contract Theory 81
The second, and far more significant, criticism of utilitarianism is that the utilitar-
ian calculus is solely interested in the total amount of happiness produced. Suppose
one course of action results in every member of a society receiving 100 units of good,
while another course of action results in half the members of society receiving 201
units of good each, with the other half receiving nothing. According to the calculus
of utility, the second course of action is superior because the total amount of good
is higher. That doesn’t seem right to many people.
A possible response to this criticism is that our goal should be to promote the
greatest good of the greatest number. In fact, that is how utilitarianism is often
described. A person subscribing to this philosophy might say that we ought to use
two principles to guide our conduct: (1) we should act so that the greatest amount
of good is produced, and (2) we should distribute the good as widely as possible.
The first of these principles is the principle of utility, but the second is a principle
of distributive justice. In other words, “act so as to promote the greatest good of
the greatest number” is not pure utilitarianism. The proposed philosophy is not
internally consistent, because there are times when the two principles conflict. In
order to be useful, the theory also needs a procedure to resolve conflicts between
the two principles. We’ll talk more about the principle of distributive justice in the
next section.
The criticisms leveled at utilitarianism point out circumstances in which it seems
to produce the “wrong” answer to a moral problem. However, rule utilitarianism treats
all persons as equals and provides its adherents with the ability to give the reasons why
a particular action is right or wrong. Hence we consider it a third workable theory for
evaluating moral problems, joining Kantianism and act utilitarianism.
2.9 Social Contract Theory
In the spring of 2003, a coalition of military forces led by the United States invaded
Iraq and removed the government of Saddam Hussein. When the police disappeared,
thousands of Baghdad residents looted government ministries [23]. Sidewalk arms mer-
chants did a thriving business selling AK-47 assault rifles to homeowners needing pro-
tection against thieves. Are Iraqis much different from residents of other countries, or
should we view the events in Baghdad as the typical response of people to a lack of gov-
ernmental authority and control?
2.9.1 The Social Contract
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1603–1679) lived during the English civil war and saw
firsthand the terrible consequences of social anarchy. In his book Leviathan, he argues
that without rules and a means of enforcing them, people would not bother to create
anything of value, because nobody could be sure of keeping what they created. Instead,
people would be consumed with taking what they needed and defending themselves
against the attacks of others. They would live in “continuall feare, and danger of violent
death,” and their lives would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” [24].
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
82 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
To avoid this miserable condition, which Hobbes calls the “state of nature,” rational
people understand that cooperation is essential. However, cooperation is possible only
when people mutually agree to follow certain guidelines. Hence moral rules are “simply
the rules that are necessary if we are to gain the benefits of social living” [5, p. 141].
Hobbes argues that everybody living in a civilized society has implicitly agreed to two
things: (1) the establishment of such a set of moral rules to govern relations among
citizens, and (2) a government capable of enforcing these rules. He calls this arrangement
the social contract.
The Franco-Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) continued the
evolution of social contract theory. In his book The Social Contract, he writes, “Since no
man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right,
all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” [25, p. 53]. Rousseau
states that the critical problem facing society is finding a form of association that guar-
antees everybody their safety and property, yet enables each person to remain free. The
answer, according to Rousseau, is for everybody to give themselves and their rights to the
whole community. The community will determine the rules for its members, and each
of its members will be obliged to obey the rules. What prevents the community from en-
acting bad rules is that no one is above the rules. Since everyone is in the same situation,
no community members will want to put unfair burdens on others because that would
mean putting unfair burdens on themselves.
While everyone might agree to this in theory, it’s easy for a single person to ratio-
nalize selfish behavior. How do we prevent individuals from shirking their duties to the
group? Suppose Bill owes the government $10,000 in taxes, but he discovers a way to
cheat on his taxes so that he only has to pay $8,000. Bill thinks to himself, “The gov-
ernment gets billions of dollars a year in taxes. So to the government another $2,000 is
just a drop in the bucket. But to me, $2,000 is a lot of money.” What restrains Bill from
acting selfishly is the knowledge that if he is caught, he will be punished. In order for the
social contract to function, society must provide not only a system of laws but a system
of enforcing the laws as well.
According to Rousseau, living in a civil society gives a person’s actions a moral
quality they would not have if that person lived in a state of nature. “It is only then,
when the voice of duty has taken the place of physical impulse, and right that of desire,
that man, who has hitherto thought only of himself, finds himself compelled to act
on other principles, and to consult his reason rather than study his inclinations.” [25,
p. 64]
James Rachels summarizes these ideas in an elegant definition of social contract
theory.
�
Social Contract Theory
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one
another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit,
on the condition that others follow those rules as well.” [5, p. 145]
�
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.9 Social Contract Theory 83
Both social contract theory and Kantianism are based on the idea that there are
universal moral rules that can be derived through a rational process. However, there is
a subtle but important difference in how we decide what makes a moral rule ethical.
Kantianism has the notion that it is right for me to act according to a moral rule if
the rule can be universalized. Social contract theory holds that it is right for me to
act according to a moral rule if rational people would collectively accept it as binding
because of its benefits to the community.
Hobbes, Locke, and many other philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries held that all morally significant beings have certain rights, such as the right
to life, liberty, and property. Some modern philosophers would add other rights to this
list, such as the right to privacy.
There is a close correspondence between rights and duties. If you have the right
to life, then others have the duty or obligation not to kill you. If you have a right to free
health care when you are ill, then others have the duty to make sure you receive it. Rights
can be classified according to the duties they put on others. A negative right is a right
that another can guarantee by leaving you alone to exercise your right. For example,
the right of free expression is a negative right. In order for you to have that right, all
others have to do is not interfere with you when you express yourself. A positive right is a
right that obligates others to do something on your behalf. The right to a free education
is a positive right. In order for you to have that right, the rest of society must allocate
resources so that you may attend school.
Another way to view rights is to consider whether they are absolute or limited. An
absolute right is a right that is guaranteed without exception. Negative rights, such as
the right to life, are usually considered absolute rights. A limited right is a right that
may be restricted based on the circumstances. Typically, positive rights are considered
to be limited rights. For example, American states guarantee their citizens the right to
an education. However, because states do not have unlimited budgets, they typically
provide a free education for everyone up through the 12th grade but require people to
pay for at least some of the costs of their higher education.
Proponents of social contract theory evaluate moral problems from the point of
view of moral rights. Kant argued that rights follow from duties. Hence Kantians evalu-
ate moral problems from duties or obligations.
2.9.2 Rawls’s Theory of Justice
One of the criticisms of utilitarianism is that the utilitarian calculus is solely interested
in the total amount of happiness produced. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, an
unequal distribution of a certain amount of utility is better than an equal distribution
of a lesser amount of utility.
Social contract theory recognizes the harm that a concentration of wealth and
power can cause. According to Rousseau, “the social state is advantageous to men only
when all possess something and none has too much” [25, p. 68]. John Rawls (1921–
2002), who did much to revive interest in social contract theory in the twentieth century,
proposed two principles of justice that extend the definition of the social contract to
include a principle dealing with unequal distributions of wealth and power.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
84 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
�
John Rawls’s Principles of Justice
1. Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and
liberties, such as freedom of thought and speech, freedom of association,
the right to be safe from harm, and the right to own property, so long as
these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same
rights and liberties.
2. Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first,
they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair
and equal opportunity to assume; and second, they are “to be to the
greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference
principle).” [26, pp. 42–43]
�
Rawls’s first principle of justice, illustrated in Figure 2.7, is quite close to our original
definition of social contract theory, except that it is stated from the point of view of rights
and liberties rather than moral rules. The second principle of justice, however, focuses
on the question of social and economic inequalities. It is hard to imagine a society in
which every person has equal standing. For example, it is unrealistic to expect every
person to be involved in every civic decision. Instead, we elect representatives who vote
in our place and officials who act on our behalf. Likewise, it is hard to imagine everybody
in a society having equal wealth. If we allow people to hold private property, we should
expect that some people will acquire more than others. According to Rawls, social and
economic inequalities are acceptable if they meet two conditions.
Just Unjust
Figure 2.7 Rawls’s first principle of justice states that each person may have a “fully
adequate” number of rights and liberties as long as they are consistent with everyone else
having the same rights and liberties.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.9 Social Contract Theory 85
$1
0,0
00
$2
0,0
00
$3
0,0
00
$4
0,0
00
$5
0,0
00
$6
0,0
00
$7
0,0
00
$8
0,0
00
$9
0,0
00
$1
00
,00
0
Personal income
In
co
m
e
ta
xe
s
p
ai
d
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Plan A
Plan B
Figure 2.8 Suppose both of these income tax structures will produce the same income to
the government. Plan A is a flat tax in which every citizen pays the same percentage of his
or her income; plan B is a progressive tax in which the income tax rate gradually rises as
a citizen’s income increases. Plan B does not treat every citizen equally, but the inequality
is justified under Rawls’s difference principle because it is of greatest benefit to the most
disadvantaged.
First, every person in the society should have an equal chance to assume a position
of higher social or economic standing. That means that two people born with equal
intelligence, equal talents, and equal motivation to use them wisely should have the same
probability of reaching an advantaged position, regardless of the social or economic
class to which they were born. For example, the fact that someone’s last name is Bush
or Kennedy should not give that person a greater probability of being elected president
of the United States than any other American born with equal intelligence, talent, and
determination.
The second condition, called the difference principle, states that social and eco-
nomic inequalities must be justified. The only way to justify a social or economic in-
equality is to show that its overall effect is to provide the most benefit to the least advan-
taged. The purpose of this principle is to help maintain a society composed of free and
equal citizens. An example of the difference principle in action is a graduated income tax
system in which people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income in
taxes (Figure 2.8). An example of a violation of the difference principle would be a mil-
itary draft system in which poor people had a higher probability of being drafted than
wealthy people.
2.9.3 Evaluating a Scenario Using Social Contract Theory
� Scenario
Bill, the owner of a chain of DVD rental stores in a major metropolitan area,
uses a computer to keep track of the DVDs rented by each customer. Using this
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
86 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
information, he is able to construct profiles of the customers. For example, a
customer who rents a large number of Disney titles is likely to have children. Bill
sells these profiles to mail-order companies. The customers begin receiving many
unsolicited mail-order catalogs. Some of the customers are happy to receive
these catalogs and make use of them to order products. Others are unhappy at
the increase in the amount of “junk mail” they are receiving.
Analysis
To analyze this scenario using social contract theory, we think about the rights
of the rational agents involved. In this case, the rational agents are Bill, his
customers, and the mail-order companies. The morality of Bill’s actions revolve
around the question of whether he violated the privacy rights of his customers.
If someone rents a DVD from one of Bill’s stores, both the customer and Bill
have information about the transaction. Are their rights to this information
equal? If both the customer and Bill have equal rights to this information, then
you may conclude there is nothing wrong with him selling this information to
a mail-order company. On the other hand, if customers have the right to expect
transactions to be confidential, you may conclude that Bill was wrong to sell this
information without gaining the permission of the customer. �
2.9.4 The Case for Social Contract Theory
1. It is framed in the language of rights.
The cultures of many modern countries, particularly Western-style democracies,
promote individualism. For people raised in these cultures, the concept of individ-
ual rights is powerful and attractive.
2. It explains why rational people act out of self-interest in the absence of a common
agreement.
Suppose we are living in a city experiencing a gasoline shortage. If every car owner
uses public transportation two days a week, there will be enough gasoline to go
around. I need to decide if I will take the bus two days a week.
Suppose no other car owners ride the bus two days a week. If I decide to ride
the bus, I will have to put up with the inconvenience and the city will still run out
of gas. Alternatively, I can do what everybody else is doing and continue driving my
car until the gasoline supply is exhausted. Since the city will run out of gas either
way, I experience less inconvenience by continuing to drive my car every day.
On the other hand, suppose all the other car owners decide to ride the bus two
days a week. If I decide to ride the bus, I will probably discover that the bus is quite
crowded, since many more people than usual are riding the bus. I will have to adjust
my work schedule to fit the bus schedule, waste time waiting at the bus stop, and
so on. The good news is that the city will not run out of gasoline. Alternatively, I
can continue to drive my car. That will be more convenient for me. The amount of
gasoline my car consumes is insignificant compared to the needs of the city, and the
city will not run out of gasoline. Since the city will not run out of gas either way, I
experience less inconvenience by continuing to drive my car every day.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.9 Social Contract Theory 87
To summarize, if no one else rides the bus, it’s better for me if I drive my car.
If everyone else rides the bus, it’s better for me if I drive my car. I have used logic
to conclude that I should continue to drive my car. Unfortunately, everyone else
in the town logically reaches the same conclusion! As a result, the city runs out of
gasoline.
The reason we all decided to act selfishly was because we did not have a com-
mon agreement. If all of us agreed that everyone should ride the bus two days a
week, and those who did not would pay large fines, then logic would have led people
to choose to use public transportation.
Social contract theory is based on the idea that morality is the result of an
implicit agreement among rational beings who understand that there is a tension
between self-interest and the common good. The common good is best realized
when everyone cooperates. Cooperation occurs when those acting selfishly suffer
negative consequences.
3. It explains why under certain circumstances the government may deprive some people
of some rights.
For example, social contract theory provides a logical explanation of why it is
morally acceptable to punish someone for a crime. You might ask, “If everyone
has a right to liberty, how can we put in prison someone who has committed a
crime?” The social contract is based on the notion that everyone benefits when ev-
eryone bears the burden of following certain rules. Knowledge that those who do
not follow the rules will be punished restrains individuals from selfishly flouting
their obligations. People will have this knowledge only if society punishes those
who commit crimes.
4. It explains why under certain circumstances civil disobedience can be the morally right
decision.
Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1960s. On February 1, 1960, four African
American students from North Carolina A&T walked into the Woolworth’s store
on South Elm Street in Greensboro, sat down at a whites-only lunch counter, and
asked for service. When they were denied service, they refused to leave, sitting at
their stools until the store closed. Two days later, eighty-five students participated
in the sit-in at Woolworth’s. All of these students were breaking segregation laws,
but according to social contract theory, their actions could be considered morally
justified. As we have said, the social contract is based on the idea that everyone
receives certain benefits in return for bearing certain burdens. The segregation laws
were designed to give people of color greater burdens and fewer benefits than white
people. Therefore, they were unjust.
2.9.5 The Case against Social Contract Theory
1. None of us signed the social contract.
The social contract is not a real contract. Since none of us have actually agreed to
the obligations of the citizens of our society, why should we be bound to them?
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
88 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
Defenders of social contract theory point out that the social contract is a theo-
retical notion that is supposed to explain the rational process through which com-
munities adopt moral guidelines. As John Rawls puts it, social contract agreements
are hypothetical and nonhistorical. They are hypothetical in the sense that they are
what reasonable people “could, or would, agree to, not what they have agreed to”
[26, p. 16]. They are nonhistorical because they “do not suppose the agreement has
ever, or indeed ever could actually be entered into” [26, pp. 16–17]. Furthermore,
even if it could be entered into, that would make no difference. The reason it would
make no difference is because the moral guidelines are supposed to be the result of
analysis (facts and values plus logical reasoning), not history. Social contract theory
is not cultural relativism in disguise.
2. Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways.
This is a problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Some situations are
complicated and can be described in more than one way. Our characterization of a
situation can affect the rules or rights we determine to be relevant to our analysis.
3. Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a moral problem when the analysis
reveals conflicting rights.
This is another problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Consider
the knotty moral problem of abortion, in which the mother’s right to privacy is
pitted against the fetus’s right to life. As long as each of these rights is embraced by
one side in the controversy, the issue cannot be resolved. What typically happens in
debates is that advocates on one side of the issue “solve” the problem by discounting
or denying the right invoked by their adversaries.
4. Social contract theory may be unjust to those people who are incapable of upholding
their side of the contract.
Social contract theory provides every person with certain rights in return for that
person bearing certain burdens. When a person does not follow the moral rules, he
or she is punished. What about human beings who, through no fault of their own,
are unable to follow the moral rules?
A response to this objection is that there is a difference between someone
who deliberately chooses to break a moral rule and someone who is incapable of
understanding a rule. Society must distinguish between these two groups of people.
People who deliberately break moral rules should be punished, but people who
cannot understand a rule must be cared for.
However, this response overlooks the fact that distinguishing between these two
groups of people can be difficult. For example, how should we treat drug addicts
who steal to feed their addiction? Some countries treat them as criminals and put
them in a prison. Other countries treat them as mentally ill people and put them in
a hospital.
These criticisms demonstrate some of the weaknesses of social contract theory.
Nevertheless, social contract theory is logical and analytical. It allows people to explain
why a particular action is moral or immoral. According to our criteria, it is a workable
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.10 Virtue Ethics 89
ethical theory, joining Kantianism, act utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism as a way of
evaluating moral problems.
2.10 Virtue Ethics
Some moral philosophers criticize Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory
because they ignore what these philosophers consider to be important aspects of living
a moral life, including moral education, moral wisdom, family and social relationships,
and the role of emotions [6]. Over the past several decades there has been a resurgence
of interest in virtue ethics, an ethical theory that accounts for all of these factors.
Unlike Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory, which grew out of
the Enlightenment, virtue ethics can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece. The
notion of arete, usually translated as virtue or excellence, refers to reaching one’s highest
potential. The most influential treatment of virtue appears in Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics, written in the fourth century BC. In this book Aristotle expresses the opinion
that the path to true happiness and genuine flourishing as a human being lies in living a
life of virtue [27].
2.10.1 Virtues and Vices
According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtues: intellectual virtues and moral
virtues. Intellectual virtues are those virtues associated with reasoning and truth. Moral
virtues, often called virtues of character by today’s writers, are habits or dispositions
formed through the repetition of the relevant virtuous actions (Figure 2.9). For example,
you can develop the moral virtue of honesty by habitually telling the truth or performing
other honest actions. In this section our primary focus is on the moral virtues.
A moral virtue is a deep-seated character trait. Consider someone who possesses the
virtue of honesty, for example. An honest person will tell the truth as a matter of course,
will be uncomfortable with even the thought of doing something deceitful, and will not
appreciate being invited by others to join in a dishonest activity. Morally good people
consistently do what is right; it becomes second nature to them.
Note, then, that a moral virtue is not simply a disposition to act in a particular way,
it is also a disposition to feel in a particular way. According to Aristotle, you can tell a lot
about someone’s character by observing what pleases them and what bothers them. He
wrote, “We may even go so far as to state that the man who does not enjoy performing
noble actions is not a good man at all. Nobody would call a man just who does not enjoy
acting justly, nor generous who does not enjoy generous actions, and so on.” [27, p. 16]
Of course, some moral virtues have a more direct connection to the emotions than
others. Courage is a good example of a virtue that has a close connection with the
emotions. In order to be courageous, you must be able to moderate your fear.
As noted earlier, a moral virtue is a deep-seated character trait, and character traits
take time to become deep-seated. Consider a young Boy Scout who is encouraged by his
scoutmaster to take the Boy Scout slogan seriously and “do a good turn daily.” The scout
initially responds to this encouragement by actively looking for opportunities to help
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
90 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
FEED THE
HUNGRY
Figure 2.9 According to Aristotle, happiness derives from living a life of virtue. You acquire
moral virtues by repeating the appropriate acts.
someone each day, not so much because he is interested in being helpful, but because he
looks up to his scoutmaster and seeks his praise and approval. The young scout continues
doing daily good deeds for family members, friends, and even strangers for a significant
period of time. Eventually he realizes that he has persisted in his practice of doing a good
turn daily so that it has become a habit—something so ingrained that he no longer relies
upon the compliments of his scoutmaster for motivation. His daily efforts give him a
sense of genuine satisfaction. At this point being helpful to others has become second
nature to the scout; he has become benevolent.
When someone possessing a virtue does not exercise the virtue, we know there is a
good explanation. Suppose Shirley is known for her reliability. She does what she says
she will do, and she shows up on time for meetings. Everybody knows they can count
on Shirley. One morning Shirley does not show up for a meeting she had promised to
attend. When the others notice her absence, they say, “Something must have happened.”
They understand that there must have been an extenuating circumstance that prevented
Shirley from showing up for the meeting on time.
�
Summary of Virtue Ethics
A right action is an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would
do in the same circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who possesses
and lives out the virtues. The virtues are those character traits human
beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy.
�
Randall
Highlight
2.10 Virtue Ethics 91
Which virtues are those humans need in order to flourish and be truly happy?
To some extent that depends on the culture. In Homeric Greece physical courage was
prized; pioneers to the American West put a high value on self-reliance; in today’s mul-
ticultural society tolerance is important. However, certain core virtues, such as honesty,
justice, and loyalty, seem to be of universal importance.
A vice is a character trait that prevents a human being from flourishing or being
truly happy. Vices, then, are the opposite of virtues. Aristotle noticed that in many
cases two different vices can be associated with a virtue: one corresponding to an excess
and the other corresponding to a deficiency. For example, the virtue of courage can
be seen occupying a middle ground between cowardice (having an excess of fear) and
rashness (having a deficiency of fear). The virtue of friendliness is somewhere in between
quarrelsomeness (being too critical of what others like or what they want to do) and
obsequiousness (giving in too easily and not being critical enough of what others like or
what they want to do).
Virtue ethics pays particular attention to the agent (the person performing the
action) as well as the action (as in Kantianism and social contract theory) and the
consequences of the action (as in utilitarianism). A good person does “the right thing
at the right time for the right reason” [28].
According to the theory of virtue ethics, moral decision making cannot be reduced
to the routine application of a set of rules. That is not to say there is no place for
“rules of thumb.” In order to develop the virtue of trustworthiness, for example, it is
a good idea to follow the rule of thumb “Keep confidences.” However, under certain
circumstances keeping a confidence may not be the right course of action. Moral wisdom
or discernment takes precedence over any rule [6].
2.10.2 Making a Decision Using Virtue Ethics
� Scenario
Josh is a senior majoring in computer science at a small university. All of the
seniors in computer science are friends because they have taken most of their
computer science courses together. Josh is particularly close to Matt. Josh and
Matt are from the same city about 200 miles from campus, and Matt has given
Josh rides to and from home a half dozen times at the start and end of school
holidays. Notably, Matt never asked Josh to help pay for the gas on any of these
trips, and Josh never offered to do so.
When it is time for seniors to choose partners for their capstone project, no
one is surprised when Josh and Matt end up on the same team. Unfortunately,
Josh and the other teammates soon rue inviting Matt onto their team. Everyone
has known Matt to be hard-working, trustworthy, and reliable, but his father
just died in a car accident, and he has lost all interest in school. To make matters
worse, Matt is drinking too much. He doesn’t show up for a lot of the team
meetings, and the code he produces doesn’t meet the specifications. Josh and
the other teammates can’t persuade Matt to take the project more seriously, and
since they don’t have any real control over his behavior, they decide it’s easier
simply to rewrite Matt’s part of the system themselves. Matt does contribute his
share of the PowerPoint slides, and during the oral presentation he stands up and
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
92 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
talks about “his” portion of the code, never mentioning that it was all rewritten
by his teammates.
Everyone in the class is supposed to send the professor an email grading
the performance of their teammates. The department prides itself on graduating
students who have proven they can work well on software development teams,
and students getting poor or failing performance reviews from all of their
teammates may be forced to repeat the class. Matt comes to Josh, tells him
that he really needs to pass this class because he can’t afford to stay in college any
longer, and pleads for a good performance review. What should Josh do?
Decision
Josh must decide whether or not to disclose to the professor that Matt did not
even come close to doing his share of the team project, fully aware that a poor
or failing performance evaluation may prevent Matt from graduating. Josh is an
honest person, and he has a hard time imagining that he could tell the professor
that Matt did a good job when that is far from the truth. However, Josh is also
a just person, and he feels indebted toward Matt, who has done him a lot of
favors over the past four years—particularly those free rides to and from his
hometown. Josh also feels compassion toward Matt, who lost his father. It’s bad
enough to lose a parent, but because of the sudden nature of his father’s death,
Matt didn’t even have the chance to say goodbye to him.
As he ponders his dilemma, Josh begins to realize that he finds himself in
this difficult spot because at several points in the past he didn’t step up and
do the right thing. He took advantage of Matt’s generosity (and gave in to his
own greedy impulses) by taking all those free rides to and from his hometown.
If he had paid his share of the gas money, he wouldn’t be feeling so obligated
toward Matt. Josh also knows he wasn’t a very good friend when he failed to
talk with Matt about how he was feeling about his father’s death and how that
was affecting his performance on the senior project. Matt’s lack of attention to
his schoolwork was definitely out of character, a sign that he was suffering a
lot. Josh now understands that he and the other teammates should have had
a conversation with the professor in charge of the senior projects when it first
became apparent that Matt was not participating fully as a teammate. An early
intervention could have resulted in a completely different outcome.
After reflecting on what he should do, Josh concludes he must be truthful
with the professor. However, he will not simply tell the professor that Matt’s
performance was poor. Josh decides he will also take responsibility for his role
in the fiasco by providing a full account to the professor of how his own failure
to respond to the situation earlier in the year contributed to the unsatisfactory
outcome. �
2.10.3 The Case for Virtue Ethics
1. In many situations it makes more sense to focus on virtues than on obligations, rights,
or consequences. Consider, for example, why it is wrong to steal to satisfy a selfish
desire. According to Kantianism, the act is wrong because the person doing the
Randall
Highlight
2.10 Virtue Ethics 93
stealing is not treating his or her victims as ends in themselves. According to rule
utilitarianism, stealing is wrong because the long-term consequences of everybody
stealing all the time would produce more harm than good. The explanation from
the perspective of virtue ethics is much simpler: stealing to satisfy a selfish desire is
wrong because it disrupts one’s acquisition of the virtue of honesty.
2. Personal relationships can be morally relevant to decision making. Recall that utilitari-
anism, Kantianism, and social contract theory require us to be completely impartial
and treat all human beings as equal. This assumption leads to conclusions that are
hard for most people to accept. For example, when a couple is faced with the choice
between using $5,000 to take their children to Disneyland for a week or feeding
1,000 starving refugees for a month, the calculus of utility would conclude sav-
ing 1,000 lives was the better option. When evaluating the same choice from the
perspective of virtue ethics, the relationship the couple has with their children is
morally relevant. Parents are supposed to be partial toward their own children, and
this can be taken into account when determining the best action to take.
3. Virtue ethics recognizes that our moral decision-making skills develop over time. People
develop moral virtues by making habits of the appropriate acts. It takes time for a
person’s character to develop. Moral wisdom is an intellectual virtue that also takes
time to develop. Each of us is on the journey from the-person-I-am to the-person-I-
am-meant-to-be, and if I am confused about the right action to take in a particular
circumstance, I can go ask someone who is further along in the journey. In this way
virtue ethics aligns with our everyday experience. People commonly ask someone
“older and wiser” when they truly want to do the right thing and feel uncertain
about the best course of action.
4. There are no irresolvable moral dilemmas. Recall that a weakness of Kantianism is
that if there is conflict between perfect duties, there is no way to choose between
them. Virtue ethics does not have this defect. Different virtues may tug a person
in different directions, but the right action can always be determined by a person
with sufficient moral wisdom. This is not to say that there are no dilemmas. Bad
things can happen to good people, and sometimes people face tragic dilemmas,
where every conceivable alternative is bad. The emotional consequences of making
decisions under these circumstances is addressed in the next point.
5. Virtue ethics recognizes the important role that emotions play in living a moral life.
Virtue ethics recognizes that humans are not dispassionate calculating machines.
They are flesh-and-blood creatures with feelings, and when things are going right,
their feelings and thoughts are in alignment. As noted before, virtuous people do
the right things at the right times for the right reasons. They feel satisfied doing
good. When faced with difficult decisions, they are deeply affected.
2.10.4 The Case against Virtue Ethics
1. Different people may have quite different conceptions of human flourishing. According
to virtue ethics, virtues are character traits that humans need in order to flourish.
We do not live in a homogeneous society, and there are a wide variety of perspectives
about what character traits lead to the most fulfilling life. If we cannot agree on
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
94 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
which character traits are virtues, then we will not be able to agree on what a
virtuous person would do in a particular situation. Therefore, the virtue ethics
approach is not as powerful as Kantianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract
theory, which identify moral norms that are universally true.
2. Virtue ethics cannot be used to guide government policy. Virtue ethics focuses on the
agent, a virtuous human being, more than the act or the consequences of the act.
Government policy is typically set by government agencies or groups of officials, not
individuals. Consider the case brought up in Section 2.7.2, in which a state must de-
cide whether or not to replace a section of highway. An act utilitarian can determine
the monetary costs and benefits of the proposal and reach a conclusion about the
better option. Virtue ethics has something to say about the officials involved in the
decision—they should be honest, diligent, and prudent, for example—but it has
nothing more to contribute to the analysis.
3. Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people responsible for their bad actions.
According to virtue ethics, people are not born virtuous. Instead, intellectual and
moral virtues must be acquired over time. To a great extent, the virtues a person
attains depends upon how she is raised by her parents, the education she receives,
and the community she grows up in. All of these things are outside the control of a
child. In that case, how can we hold a person responsible if she acquires vices instead
of virtues [29]?
These criticisms show that virtue ethics is not perfect. However, virtue ethics does
provide a framework for people to analyze moral situations, to reach a conclusion about
the right course of action, and to justify the conclusion using logical arguments. There-
fore, we determine that virtue ethics is a workable ethical theory, along with Kantianism,
act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory.
2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories
The divine command theory, ethical egoism, Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utili-
tarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics share the viewpoint that moral good
and moral precepts are objective. In other words, morality has an existence outside the
human mind. For this reason we say these theories are examples of objectivism.
What distinguishes ethical egoism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract the-
ory, and virtue ethics from the divine command theory is the assumption that ethical
decision making is a rational process by which people can discover objective moral
principles with the use of logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values.
Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics explicitly take other
people into consideration when defining what makes an action morally correct, which
sets these theories apart from ethical egoism. Of all the theories we have considered, we
conclude that Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory,
and virtue ethics are the most workable.
An act utilitarian considers the consequences of the action, computing the total
change in utility to determine if an action is right or wrong. Kantianism, rule utilitari-
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories 95
anism, and social contract theory are rule based. According to these theories, an action
is morally right if it is in accord with a correct moral rule.
Each of the rule-based theories has a different way of determining if a moral rule
is correct. A Kantian relies upon the Categorical Imperative. A rule utilitarian considers
what the long-term consequences of everyone following the rule would be for the total
good. An adherent of social contract theory considers whether rational people would
agree to accept the rule, for everyone’s mutual benefit, provided that everyone else agreed
to follow the rule as well.
Unlike the other theories, which focus on the act itself or the consequences of the
action, virtue ethics focuses on the agent. The purpose of the analysis is to carefully
examine the action taken by an agent in a particular situation to determine if that action
is characteristic of a virtuous person.
These differences among the theories are presented graphically in Figure 2.10.
What makes an
action morally right?
It results in the maximum
net increase in the total
good of the affected parties.
(ACT UTILITARIANISM)
It is consistent with the
actions of a virtuous
person.
(VIRTUE THEORY)
It is in accord with a
correct moral rule.
We can imagine everyone following
this rule all the time without
producing a logical contradiction
that undermines the rule.
(KANTIANISM)
The effect of everyone
following this rule all the
time would be the greatest
increase in the toal good.
(RULE UTILITARIANISM)
Rational people would
collectively accept it as binding
because of the resulting
benefits to the community.
(SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY)
What makes a
moral rule correct?
Figure 2.10 Comparison of the five workable ethical theories. All of these theories explicitly
take people other than the decision maker into consideration, assume that moral good and
moral precepts are objective, and rely upon reasoning from facts and commonly held values.
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
96 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law
What is moral and what is legal are not identical. Certain actions may be wrong, even
if there are no laws forbidding these actions. For example, most American states do
not have laws prohibiting texting while driving, but drivers are still morally responsible
for traffic accidents they cause because they are distracted by texting. What about the
opposite situation? Is it possible that an action may be the right thing to do, even if it is
illegal?
In our discussion of social contract theory, we discussed the morality of civil dis-
obedience, and we concluded that from the perspective of this theory the lunch counter
sit-ins were morally acceptable because the segregation laws being violated were unjust.
Here we are considering a different situation. We are assuming the law is just. When this
is the case, is it possible that an illegal action may be the right action?
To ground our analysis, we will consider a particular illegal action: violating a
licensing agreement by copying a CD containing copyrighted music and giving it to a
friend.2
2.12.1 Social Contract Theory Perspective
Social contract theory is based on the assumption that everyone in society ought to
bear certain burdens in order to receive certain benefits. The legal system is instituted
to guarantee that people’s rights are protected. It guarantees people will not choose their
selfish interests over the common good. For this reason we have a prima facie obligation
to obey the law (Figure 2.11). That means, everything else being equal, we should be law
abiding. In return, our own legal rights will be respected. Our obligation to obey the law
should be broken only if we are compelled to follow a higher-order moral obligation.
From the point of view of social contract theory, then, it is wrong to give a friend a
copy of a CD containing copyrighted music, because that action violates the legal rights
of the person or organization owning the copyright. The desire to do something nice for
a friend is not an overriding moral concern.
2.12.2 Kantian Perspective
The Kantian perspective is quite similar to that of social contract theory. People need to
be able to possess objects in order to freely use them for their own purposes. According to
Kant, property rights are made possible through an implicit common agreement. When
you declare that an object is yours, you are stating that everyone else is obliged to refrain
from using that object. Justice demands that in order for you to make such a claim, you
must also respect the similar claims of everyone else. The state ensures that everyone
meets the obligation of respecting everyone else’s property rights.
2. This action is illegal in the United States and many other countries, but it is not illegal in every country.
2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law 97
Figure 2.11 According to social contract theory, we have a prima facie obligation to obey
the law.
If you were to copy a CD containing copyrighted material, you would be violating
the property rights of the copyright owner—you would be failing to fulfill your obliga-
tions to others as a member of civil society. Therefore, it is wrong to copy the CD.
2.12.3 Rule Utilitarian Perspective
What would be the consequences of people ignoring laws whenever they chose? A bene-
ficial consequence would be the immediate happiness of the people who are doing what
they please rather than obeying the law. However, there would be numerous harmful
consequences. The people directly affected by lawless actions would be harmed. People
in general would have less respect for the law, which would encourage more people to
break the law. Assuming increased lawlessness puts an additional burden on the criminal
justice system, society as a whole would have to pay for having additional police officers,
prosecutors, judges, and prisons. If the lawlessness is not controlled by the criminal jus-
tice system, criminal behavior could get out of hand, causing great harm to the victims
of these criminals. Hence, from a rule utilitarian viewpoint, breaking the law has more
harms than benefits and is wrong. We should adopt the moral rule “Obey the law.”
2.12.4 Act Utilitarian Perspective
It is possible to conceive of situations where the benefits of breaking a law are greater than
the harms. Suppose I purchase a copyrighted music CD. I play it, and I think it is great.
98 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
A friend of mine is in a terrible automobile accident. While he recovers, he will need to
stay quiet for a month. I know he has no money to spend on music. In fact, people are
doing fund-raisers simply to help his family pay the medical bills. I don’t have money to
contribute to a fund-raiser, but I think of another way I could help him out. I can give
my friend a copy of the CD. He will be grateful for having a diversion during his time of
bed rest.
What would be the consequences of my action? The benefit to my friend is at least
$15, the price of the CD. I will be very happy to have been able to do something that
pleased him so much. We assign the value $10 to that beneficial consequence. As far as I
can tell, there is no lost sale, because even if I do not give my friend a copy of the CD, he is
unlikely to purchase it. In fact, giving a copy of the CD to my friend may actually increase
the sales of the CD if my friend likes it and recommends it to other people who do have
money to spend on CDs. So there are no negative consequences to the record label and
may even be some positive consequences. We assign a value of $0 as the consequence to
the record label. I am not likely to be prosecuted for what I did. Therefore, there will
be no impact on the criminal justice system. No extra police detectives, prosecutors, or
judges will need to be hired as a result of my action. The calculated consequence of my
action on the legal system has a value of $0. Adding up all of the consequences, the total
is $25 worth of benefit. If I do not give my friend a copy of the CD (i.e., do nothing),
there are no consequences, so the total benefit is $0. Therefore, making a copy of the CD
and giving it to my hospitalized friend is the right thing to do.
2.12.5 Conclusion
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about copying a CD. However, our society has
chosen to enact laws that grant intellectual property rights to people who do creative
work and distribute it on CDs. From the perspective of social contract theory and
Kantianism, we have a prima facie obligation to obey the law and respect everyone’s
property rights. From the viewpoint of rule utilitarianism, the beneficial consequences
of following the moral rule “Obey the law” greatly exceed the harmful consequences.
From the point of view of all of these theories, the law should be obeyed unless there is a
strong overriding moral obligation. Copying a disc to save a few dollars or help a friend
does not fall into that category.
From an act utilitarian viewpoint, it is possible to come up with a circumstance
where making a copy of a copyrighted CD is the right action. However, it would be
wrong to extrapolate from this particular case and conclude that an act utilitarian analy-
sis would always determine CD copying to be morally acceptable.
Summary
We live together in communities for our mutual benefit. Every society has guidelines
indicating what people are supposed to do in various circumstances. We call these guide-
lines morality. Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is a rational examination of people’s
moral beliefs and behaviors. In this chapter we have considered a variety of ethical the-
ories, with the purpose of identifying those that will be of most use to us as we consider
the effects of information technology on society.
Randall
Highlight
Review Questions 99
Relativistic theories are based on the idea that people invent morality. A relativist
claims there are no universal moral principles. Subjective relativism is the theory that
morality is an individual creation. Cultural relativism is the idea that each society de-
termines its own morality. If morality is invented, and no set of moral guidelines is any
better than another, then there are no objective criteria that can be used to determine
if one set of guidelines is better than another. Under these circumstances, the study of
ethics is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
In contrast, objectivism is based on the idea that morality has an existence outside
the human mind. It is the responsibility of people to discover morality. An objectivist
claims there are certain universal moral principles that are true for all people, regardless
of their historical or cultural situation. All of the other theories discussed in this chapter
are based on objectivism, including the five most practical theories that we will be
using throughout the rest of the book: Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism,
social contract theory, and virtue ethics.
Our discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these practical theories revealed
that each of them contains a valuable insight. According to Kant, every human being is
equally valuable, and every interaction with another person should respect that person’s
rationality and autonomy. Utilitarians understand that it’s helpful to consider the conse-
quences of an action when deciding whether it is right or wrong. Social contract theory
focuses on the individual and collective benefits of protecting certain human rights, such
as the right to life, liberty, and property. Virtue ethics is based on the idea that you can
count on a good person to do the right thing at the right time in the right way.
Our discussion of these theories also revealed that none of them is perfect. In prac-
tice, however, there is no reason why you should not consider virtues and duties and
rights and consequences when making moral decisions. If analyses from all of these
perspectives result in a consensus on the right course of action, you can make the de-
cision with confidence. For more challenging cases, however, you will find it impossible
to come up with a virtuous course of action that respects everyone’s rights absolutely
and maximizes the total increase in happiness. That’s when things get interesting! Most
of the scenarios discussed in the rest of the book fall into the latter category.
In the chapters that follow, we’ll use Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarian-
ism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics to evaluate a variety of situations arising
from the introduction of information technology into society. Every analysis will be
based on one of the theories, so that you may come to a better understanding of how
to apply each theory to different situations. As you ponder these cases and discuss them
with others, you will learn more about your own values, what kind of person you want
to be, and what kind of world you want to live in.
Review Questions
1. Define in your own words what “the ethical point of view” means.
2. Define morality and ethics in your own words.
3. What is the difference between morality and ethics?
4. What is the difference between relativism and objectivism?
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
Randall
Highlight
100 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
5. What are the advantages of using an ethical theory in which all humans are treated
equally and guidelines are developed through a process of logical reasoning?
6. Two people are debating the morality of a particular action. Person A explains why he
believes the action is wrong. Person B disagrees with person A. Her response to him is,
“That’s your opinion.” Person B has not made a strong ethical argument. Why not?
7. What do we mean when we say an ethical theory is rational?
8. What is the many/any fallacy? Invent your own example of this fallacy.
9. What is the equivalence fallacy? Invent your own example of this fallacy.
10. Come up with your own example of a moral rule that would violate the Categorical
Imperative.
11. What is plagiarism? Describe four different ways that a person can commit plagiarism.
(See Appendix A.)
12. What is the difference between plagiarism and misuse of sources?
13. What is the difference between a consequentialist theory and a nonconsequentialist
theory?
14. Give three examples of a situation in which your action would be primarily motivated
by a sense of duty or obligation. Give three examples of a situation in which your action
would be primarily motivated by its expected consequences.
15. What is the problem of moral luck?
16. Why do businesses and governments often use utilitarian thinking to determine the
proper course of action?
17. What is the difference principle?
18. Is social contract theory as first presented a consequentialist theory or a nonconsequen-
tialist theory? Is social contract theory as articulated in Rawls’s two principles of justice
a consequentialist theory or a nonconsequentialist theory?
19. Describe virtue ethics in your own words.
20. Come up with a list of 20 virtues not mentioned in Section 2.10.
21. Describe similarities and differences between subjective relativism and ethical egoism.
22. Describe similarities and differences between divine command theory and Kantianism.
23. Describe similarities and differences between subjective relativism and act utilitar-
ianism.
24. Describe similarities and differences between Kantianism and rule utilitarianism.
25. Describe similarities and differences between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
26. Describe similarities and differences between cultural relativism and social contract
theory.
27. Describe similarities and differences between Kantianism and social contract theory.
28. Describe similarities and differences between cultural relativism and virtue ethics.
29. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.2 from a Kantian perspective.
30. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.2 from an act utilitarian perspective.
Discussion Questions 101
31. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.2 from a rule utilitarian perspective.
32. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.2 from the perspective of social
contract theory.
33. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.2 from the perspective of virtue
ethics.
Discussion Questions
34. If everyone agreed to take the ethical point of view by respecting others and their core
values, would there be any need for a rigorous study of ethics?
35. If you had to choose only one of the ethical theories presented in this chapter and use it
for all of your personal ethical decision making, which theory would you choose? Why?
How would you respond to the arguments raised against the theory you have chosen?
36. Most ethical theories agree on a large number of moral guidelines. For example, it is
nearly universally held that it is wrong to steal. What difference, then, does it make
whether someone subscribes to the divine command theory, Kantianism, utilitarianism,
or one of the other ethical theories?
37. Suppose a spaceship lands in your neighborhood. Friendly aliens emerge and invite
humans to enter the galactic community. You learn that this race of aliens has colonized
virtually the entire galaxy; Earth is one of the few inhabitable planets to host a different
intelligent species. The aliens seem to be remarkably open-minded. They ask you to
outline the ethical theory that should guide the interactions between our two species.
Which ethical theory would you describe? Why?
38. The Silver Rule states, “Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do unto
you.” Which of the five workable ethical theories is closest to the Silver Rule?
39. According to the Golden Rule, you should do unto others as you would want them to
do unto you. Which of the five workable ethical theories is closest to the Golden Rule?
40. Are there any ethical theories described in this chapter that would allow someone to use
the argument, “Everybody is doing it,” to show that an activity is not wrong?
41. How well does Moor’s theory of just consequentialism (described in the interview at the
end of this chapter) solve the problems associated with Kantianism and rule utilitarian-
ism?
42. Can moral decisions be made on a purely rational, algorithmic basis, or are there limits
to rationality in moral decision making?
43. What are some examples of contemporary information technology issues for which our
society’s moral guidelines seem to be nonexistent or unclear? (Hint: Think about issues
that are generating a lot of media coverage.)
44. People give a variety of reasons for copying a music CD from a friend instead of buying
it [30]. Refute each of the reasons given below, using one of the viable theories described
in this chapter. (You don’t have to use the same theory each time.)
a. I don’t have enough money to buy it.
b. The retail price is too high. The company is gouging customers.
102 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
c. Since I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, the company didn’t lose a sale.
d. I’m giving my friend the opportunity to do a good deed.
e. Everyone else is doing it. Why should I be the only person to buy it when everyone
else is getting it for free?
f. This is a drop in the bucket compared to Chinese pirates who sell billions of dollars
worth of copied music.
g. This is insignificant compared to the billions of dollars worth of music being ex-
changed over the Internet.
45. Students in a history class are asked to take a quiz posted on the course Web site. The
instructor has explained the following rules to the students: First, they are supposed to
do their own work. Second, they are free to consult their lecture notes and the textbook
while taking the quiz. Third, in order to get credit for the quiz, they must correctly
answer at least 80 percent of the questions. If they do not get a score of 80 percent, they
may retake the quiz as many times as they wish.
Mary and John are both taking the quiz. They are sitting next to each other in the
computer room. John asks Mary for help in answering one of the questions. He says,
“What’s the difference if you tell me the answer, I look it up in the book, or I find out
from the computer that my answer is wrong and retake the quiz? In any case, I’ll end up
getting credit for the right answer.” Mary tells John the correct answer to the question.
Discuss the morality of Mary’s decision.
46. Suppose a society holds that it is wrong for one individual to eavesdrop on the telephone
conversations of another citizen. Should that society also prohibit the government from
listening in on its citizens’ telephone conversations?
In-Class Exercises
47. In Plato’s dialogue The Republic, Glaucon argues that people do not voluntarily do what
is right [31]. According to Glaucon, anyone who has the means to do something unjust
and get away with it will do so. Glaucon illustrates his point by telling the story of Gyges.
Gyges, a shepherd, finds a magic ring. He accidentally discovers that wearing this
ring renders him invisible. He uses the power of the ring to seduce the queen, kill the
king, and take over the kingdom.
Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to debate the following proposition:
Whenever people have the opportunity to act unjustly without any fear of getting caught
or anyone thinking the worse of them, they do so.
48. For one of the following issues divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to argue
whether the right should be considered a legitimate positive right by our society:
a. The right to a higher education
b. The right to housing
c. The right to health care
d. The right of a presidential candidate to receive time on television
49. Is the right to life a negative right or a positive right? In other words, when we say
someone has the right to life, are we simply saying we have an obligation not to harm
References 103
that person, or are we saying we have an obligation to provide that person what he or
she needs in order to live, such as food and shelter?
Divide the class into two groups. One group should argue that the right to life is a
negative right; the other should argue that the right to life is a positive right.
50. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to debate this proposition: The citizens of
a representative democracy are morally responsible for the actions of their government.
51. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to debate this proposition: The moral
guidelines for individuals should apply to interactions among nation-states.
Further Reading and Viewing
Jonathan Haidt. “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives.” TEDTalks, September
2008. 18:40. www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html.
Christopher Shea. “Rule Breaker.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12, 2011. chronicle
.com.
Paul Solman. “Finding the Connection between Prosperity and Happiness.” PBS NewsHour,
June 20, 2013. 9:44. video.pbs.org.
Paul Solman. “‘Pernicious’ Effects of Economic Inequality.” PBS NewsHour, June 21, 2013.
9:24. video.pbs.org.
References
[1] James H. Moor. “Reason, Relativity, and Responsibility in Computer Ethics.” In Read-
ings in CyberEthics. 2nd ed. Edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani. Jones
and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA, 2004.
[2] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[3] Plato. Portrait of Socrates: Being the Apology, Crito and Phaedo of Plato in an English
Translation. Translated by Sir R. W. Livingstone. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England,
1961.
[4] Douglas Birsch. Ethical Insights: A Brief Introduction. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston,
MA, 2002.
[5] James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA,
2003.
[6] Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,
1999.
[7] William Graham Sumner. Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages,
Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Ginn and Company, Boston, MA, 1934.
[8] Charles M. Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars. Building Cross-Cultural Compe-
tence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT, 2000.
[9] The Torah: A Modern Commentary. Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New
York, NY, 1981.
www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
104 Chapter 2 Introduction to Ethics
[10] Plato. Plato’s Euthyphro: with Introduction and Notes and Pseudo-Platonica. Arno Press,
New York, NY, 1976.
[11] The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. Genesis, Chapter 22. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, England, 1995.
[12] The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. Genesis, Chapter 4. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, England, 1995.
[13] Ayn Rand. “The Objectivist Ethics.” In The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet Books, New
York, NY, 1964.
[14] James Rachels. “Two Arguments against Ethical Egoism.” Philosophia, Vol. 4, Nos. 2–3,
pp. 297–314, April–July 1974.
[15] James H. Fowler and Nicholar A. Christakis. “Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large
Social Network: Longitudinal Analysis over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study.”
British Medical Journal, December 4, 2008.
[16] Lewis White Beck. “Translator’s Introduction.” In Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals. 2nd ed. Library of Liberal Arts/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[17] William K. Frankena. Ethics. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.
[18] Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, p. 48.
Oxford, 1823.
[19] W. D. Ross. The Right and the Good. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England,
2003.
[20] Kevin Poulsen. “Nachi Worm Infected Diebold ATMs.” Register, November 25, 2003.
www.theregister.co.uk.
[21] Florence Olsen. “Attacks Threaten Computer Networks as Students Arrive for the Fall
Semester.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 5, 2003.
[22] Bernard Gert. “Common Morality and Computing.” In Readings in CyberEthics. 2nd
ed., p. 106. Edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani. Jones and Bartlett,
Sudbury, MA, 2004.
[23] John Daniszewski and Tony Perry. “War with Iraq; U.S. in Control; Baghdad in U.S.
Hands; Symbols of Regime Fall as Troops Take Control.” Los Angeles Times, April 10,
2003.
[24] Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, p. 186. Penguin Books, London, England, 1985.
[25] Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract . Translated by Maurice Cranston. Penguin
Books, London, England, 1968.
[26] John Rawls. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
[27] Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by F. H. Peters and M. Ostwald. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England, 1998.
[28] John Bradshaw. Reclaiming Virtue: How We Can Develop the Moral Intelligence to Do
the Right Thing at the Right Time for the Right Reason. Piatkus, 2010.
[29] Nafsika Athanassoulis. “Virtue Ethics.” In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July
7, 2010. www.iep.utm.edu.
[30] Sara Baase. A Gift of Fire. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
[31] Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by F. M. Cornford. Oxford University Press,
London, England, 1941.
www.theregister.co.uk
www.iep.utm.edu
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
James Moor
James Moor is the Daniel P. Stone Professor in Intellectual and Moral
Philosophy at Dartmouth College. He is also the editor-in-chief of the
philosophical journal Minds and Machines, and he has served as president
of the International Society for Ethics and Information Technology.
Professor Moor has written extensively on computer ethics,
the philosophy of artificial intelligence, the philosophy of mind, the
philosophy of science, and logic. His publications include “Why We
Need Better Ethics for Emerging Technologies,” Ethics and Information Tech-
nology, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2005), pp. 111–119. He and Terrell Bynum coedited
The Digital Phoenix: How Computers Are Changing Philosophy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, 1998,
and revised edition, 2000) and Cyberphilosophy: The Intersection of Computing and Philosophy (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Publishers, 2002).
In 2003 Dr. Moor received the Making a Difference Award from the Association for Computing
Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computers and Society. In 2006 he received the Barwise
Prize for his work in philosophy and computing from the American Philosophical Association. He
holds a PhD in history and philosophy of science from Indiana University.
What stimulated your interest in studying the philosophy of technology?
My interest developed initially through a fascination with computing. The philosophy of computing
is a combination of logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and value theory—the complete philosophical
package wrapped up in a very practical and influential technological form. Who wouldn’t be interested
in that? Many standard philosophical issues are brought to life in a computer setting. Consider a simple
example: In the Republic, Plato tells a story about the ring of Gyges in which a shepherd finds a ring
that, when he wears it and turns it, makes him invisible. Being a clever but rather unethical shepherd,
he uses the power of the ring to take over the kingdom, including killing the king and marrying the
queen. Through this story Plato raises a deep and important philosophical question: Why be just if one
can get away with being unjust? Today the Internet offers each of us our own ring of Gyges. Agents on
the Internet can be largely invisible. The question for us, echoing Plato, is why be just while using the
Internet if one can get away with being unjust?
What distinguishes ethical problems in computing from ethical problems in other fields?
Some have argued that the ethical problems in the field are unique. This is difficult to show, because
the problems involving computing usually connect with our ordinary ethical problems in some way.
Nevertheless, what makes the field of computer ethics special and important, though probably not
unique, is the technology itself—the computer. Computers are logically malleable machines in that
they can be shaped to do any task that one can design, train, or evolve them to do. Computers
are universal tools, and this explains why they are so commonplace and culturally transforming.
Because they are used in so many ways, new situations continually arise for which we do not have
clear policies to guide actions. The use of computing creates policy vacuums. For instance, when
wireless technology first appeared, there were questions about whether one should be allowed to
access someone else’s wireless system, for example, when driving down the street. Should such access
be considered trespassing? Ethical rights and duties of novel situations are not always clear. Because
computers are universal tools and can be applied in so many diverse ways, they tend to create many
more policy vacuums than other technologies. This is one respect in which the ethical problems in
Randall
Highlight
computing are different from other fields, at least in degree if not in kind. This makes computer ethics
an extraordinarily important discipline for all of us.
How has information technology affected the field of ethics in the past two decades?
Twenty years ago, I had to search newspapers and magazines to find stories on computer/information
ethics. Such stories were uncommon. Now many such stories appear daily. They are so common that
the fact that computing is involved is unremarkable. Stories about body parts being sold on eBay or
identity theft over the Internet or spam legislation all presuppose computing, but computing has so
permeated our culture that it is not something uncommon, but something almost everybody uses. In
a sense, much of ethics has become computer ethics!
Why do you believe it is helpful to view computer ethics issues in terms of policies?
When we act ethically, we are acting such that anyone in a similar situation would be allowed to do
the same kind of action. I am not allowed to have my own set of ethical policies that allow me to do
things that others in a relevantly similar situation cannot do. Ethical policies are public policies. An
act utilitarian, by contrast, would consider each situation individually. On this view, cheating would
not only be justified but required if the individual doing the cheating benefited and others were not
harmed because they did not know about it. This seems to me to be a paradigm of unethical behavior,
and hence I advocate a public policy approach. If cheating is allowed for some, then everyone should
be allowed to cheat in similar situations.
Rather than using “policies” I could use “rules.” But ethical rules are sometimes regarded as binding
without exceptions. A system of exceptionless rules will never work as an ethical theory, for rules can
conflict and sometimes exceptions must be made because of extraordinary consequences. One might
be justified in lying to save a life, for example. I prefer using the word “policy” because I want to suggest
modification may be necessary in cases of conflict or in extraordinary circumstances. Notice that the
policies involving exceptions must themselves be treated as public policy. If it is justifiable for someone
to lie to save a life, it will be justified for others to lie to save a life in similar circumstances.
Please explain the process of resolving an ethical issue using your theory of just conse-
quentialism.
The view is somewhat like rule utilitarianism and somewhat like Kantian ethics but differs crucially
from both of them. Rule utilitarians wish to maximize the good but typically without concern for jus-
tice. Just consequentialism does not require maximization of the good, which is in general unknowable,
and does not sanction unjust policies simply because they have good consequences. Kant’s theory re-
quires us to act only on those maxims that we can will to be a universal law. But Kant’s theory does not
allow for exceptions. Kant thought one ought never lie. Moreover, the typical Kantian test question of
what would happen if everyone did a certain kind of action is not the right question, for this test rules
out far too much, for example, becoming a computer programmer (what if everyone were to become a
computer programmer?). For just consequentialism, the test question is what would happen if every-
one were allowed to do a certain kind of action. We need to consider both the consequences and the
justice of our public policies.
In ethics we are concerned about rights and duties, and consequences of actions. Just consequentialism
is a mixed system in that it is part deontological and part consequential. Rights and duties can be
challenged if they are unfair or cause significant harm, but usually are properly taken as normative
guides. One’s rights as a citizen and one’s duties as a parent are examples. In evaluating consequences
we need to consider values that all people share, because we want to develop a policy that we can
impartially publicly advocate. Everyone in similar circumstances should be allowed to follow it. At
least some of these universal values to be considered are happiness, life, ability, security, knowledge,
freedom, opportunity, and resources. Notice that these are core goods that any sane human wants
regardless of which society the human is in.
In the ethical decision process, step one is to consider a set of policies for acting in the kind of situation
under consideration. Step two is to consider the relevant duties, rights, and consequences involved
with each policy. Step three is to decide whether the policy can be impartially advocated as a public
policy, that is, anyone should be allowed to act in a similar way in similar circumstances. Many policies
may be readily acceptable. Many may be easily rejected. And some may be in dispute, as people may
weigh the relevant values differently or disagree about the factual outcomes.
In general, rights and duties carry prima facie weight in ethical decision making, and in general cannot
be overridden lightly. But if the consequences of following certain rights and duties are bad enough,
then overriding them may be acceptable as long as this kind of exception can be an acceptable public
policy. In controversial cases, there will be rational disagreements. Just consequentialism does not
require complete agreement on every issue. Note that we have disagreements in ordinary nonethical
decision making as well. But just consequentialism does guide us in determining where and why the
disagreements occur so that further discussion and resolution may be possible.
You have also studied the field of artificial intelligence from a philosophical point of view.
Do you believe it is possible to create a truly intelligent machine capable of ethical decision
making? If so, how far are we from making such a machine a reality?
Nobody has shown that it is impossible, but I think we are very far away from such a possibility. The
problem may have less to do with ethics than with epistemology. Computers (expert systems) some-
times possess considerable knowledge about special topics, but they lack commonsense knowledge.
Without even the ability to understand simple things that any normal child can grasp, computers will
not be able to make considered ethical decisions in any robust sense.
Can an inanimate object have intrinsic moral worth, or is the value of an object strictly
determined by its utility to one or more humans?
I take values or moral worth to be a judgment based on standards. The standards that count for us
are human. We judge other objects using our standards. This may go beyond utility, however, as we
might judge a nonuseful object to be aesthetically pleasing. Our human standards might be challenged
sometime in the future if robots developed consciousness or if we become cyborgs with a different set
of standards. Stay tuned.
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
C H A P T E R
3 Networked
Communications
Lo, soul, seest thou not God’s purpose from the first?
The earth to be spann’d, connected by network,
The races, neighbors, to marry and be given in marriage,
The oceans to be cross’d, the distant brought near,
The lands to be welded together.
—–Walt Whitman, “Passage to India”
3.1 Introduction
During government meetings in Washington, DC, it’s common for those sitting
around the conference table to bow their heads. They’re not praying—they’re using their
smartphones. “You’ll have half the participants [texting] each other as a submeeting,
with a running commentary on the primary meeting,” reports Philippe Reines, who
served as senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [1].
Musician Ken Stringfellow of the Posies uses the Web to interact with his fans. “I log
in to Facebook, and in like 30 seconds, I have like 50 people in my chat windows. And I
answer their questions: ‘Oh, yeah, you wanna get that record? I’ve got a couple of those
in stock.’ That kind of stuff ” [2].
According to a recent Gallup poll, more American adults get their news from the
Internet than from newspapers. In a 2013 survey, 21 percent of adults said they get most
of their news from the Internet, compared to only 9 percent who said they rely upon
110 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
Figure 3.1 Far more people in the world have access to cell phones than have access to
electricity or clean water. (Charles Sturge/Alamy)
newspapers as their primary source. Both of these media were dwarfed by television,
which was the primary source of news for 55 percent of those polled [3].
The Internet has opened up new opportunities for politicians to attract donations.
During his successful run for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama raised $500 million
from three million donors who contributed over the Internet [4]. A grassroots move-
ment supporting longshot presidential candidate Ron Paul raised $4 million for him in
a single day in 2007 [5].
These stories illustrate how networked communications have become integrated
into our lives. Using these networks can be a double-edged sword, however. The Internet
and cellular networks efficiently support our desire to interact with other people and
accomplish a wide variety of everyday tasks (Figure 3.1). On the other hand, some people
use these technologies to lower the quality of our lives through such activities as trying
to sell us products we don’t want to buy, harassing us, or luring us into wasting our time
with frivolous or counterproductive activities.
In this chapter we explore moral issues associated with our use of the Internet and
the telephone system. We begin by focusing on email, the most popular Internet appli-
cation. We discuss how the increase in unsolicited bulk email, or spam, has degraded the
quality of email service.
The World Wide Web has proven to be the most popular way of organizing informa-
tion on the Internet, and millions of people are using the Web-based social networking
service Twitter to communicate with each other. Some governments are threatened by
the way in which the Internet has made it so easy for people to access information and
3.2 Spam 111
communicate with each other. We discuss the different kinds of censorship, the chal-
lenges posed to censorship by the Internet, and the morality of censorship.
Next we turn to the issue of freedom of expression. We explore its history in England
and the United States, and examine how it became enshrined as the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution. While the First Amendment protects freedom of
expression, it is not an absolute right. The US Supreme Court has ruled that personal
freedom of expression must be balanced against the public good.
To ground our discussion of freedom of expression, we focus on the issue of chil-
dren and inappropriate content. We describe how Web filters work, and we summarize
the Child Internet Protection Act, which requires Web filters to be installed in public li-
braries receiving federal funds. We use our set of workable ethical theories to evaluate the
morality of this law. At the end of this section, we describe a relatively new phenomenon
called sexting, in which people use cell phones to send sexually provocative images of
themselves. Sexting provides a good example of how technology has created what James
Moor would call a policy vacuum: a situation in which society has not yet determined
what should be allowed, what should be forbidden, and what the legal consequences of
forbidden actions should be.
The Internet provides new ways to commit fraud and deceive people. Identity
thieves are using email and Web sites to capture credit card numbers and other per-
sonal information. Pedophiles have used chat rooms to arrange meetings with children.
Police have responded to the pedophile threat with sting operations, which are them-
selves morally questionable. Web surfers must be aware that the Web contains a great
deal of low-quality information. We describe one way in which search engines attempt
to direct Web surfers to higher-quality sites.
Some people have used the Internet and/or the telephone network to bully other
people. We describe a couple of famous instances of cyberbullying and discuss the con-
troversy that has arisen over proposed legislation to ban cyberbullying.
The widespread availability of the Internet has increased the number of people
who spend 40 or more hours a week online. Some psychologists claim there are a vast
number of Internet addicts. Others say these fears are overblown. In the last section of
this chapter, we discuss this issue and evaluate the problem of excessive Internet use from
an ethical point of view.
3.2 Spam
The growth of email has been phenomenal—well over a billion people now have email
accounts [6]. Every day about 300 billion email messages are sent. Unfortunately, a
significant percentage of this traffic consists of unsolicited bulk email, or spam.
Why is spam called spam? Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, traces the term back to the SPAM sketch from The Final Rip
Off by Monty Python’s Flying Circus, in which a group of Vikings drown out a cafe
conversation by loudly and obnoxiously repeating the word “spam” [7]. In a similar way,
legitimate email messages can get “drowned out” by spam.
112 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
3.2.1 The Spam Epidemic
The rise of spam corresponds with the transformation of the Internet from a noncom-
mercial academic and research enterprise into a commercial global network. Early spam
messages provoked Internet users and generated big headlines. For example, in 1994
Phoenix lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel sent an email advertising their im-
migration services to more than 9,000 electronic newsgroups. Canter and Siegel received
tens of thousands of responses from outraged newsgroup users who did not appreciate
seeing an off-topic, commercial message. The New York Times reported the incident with
the headline, “An Ad (Gasp!) in Cyberspace.” Canter and Siegel were undeterred. Their
ad was successful in bringing them new clients. “We will definitely advertise on the Web
again,” Canter said. “I’m sure other businesses will be advertising on the network in the
very near future” [8].
As recently as 2000, spam accounted for only about 8 percent of all email. It was still
viewed as a problem for individuals managing their mailboxes. By 2009 about 90 percent
of all emails were spam (Figure 3.2) [9]. Today spam consumes a large percentage of the
Internet’s bandwidth and huge amounts of storage space on mail servers and individual
computers. The cost to businesses is estimated at billions of dollars per year in wasted
productivity.
The volume of spam is so large because spam is effective. The principal advantage
of spam is its low cost compared to other forms of advertising. For between $500 and
$2,000, a company can send an advertisement to a million different email addresses.
Sending the same advertisement to a million addresses using the US Postal Service costs
at least $40,000 for the mailing list and $190,000 for bulk-rate postage. And that doesn’t
include the cost of the brochures! In other words, an email advertisement is more than
100 times cheaper than a traditional flyer sent out in the mail. The cost is so low that a
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000 2009
Spam
Not spam
M
e
ss
ag
e
s
p
e
r
d
ay
(
m
ill
io
n
s)
Figure 3.2 The increase in spam between 2000 and 2009. In 2000 spam accounted for 8
percent of all email. By 2009 the volume of email had increased 20-fold, and about 90 percent
of email messages were spam.
3.2 Spam 113
company can make money even if only one in 100,000 recipients of the spam actually
buys the product or service [10].
Where do spammers get email lists with millions of addresses? The Internet provides
a variety of sources of email addresses that can be harvested and sold to spammers. For
example, email addresses often appear in Web sites, in chat-room conversations, and
newsgroups. Some computer viruses gather email addresses stored in the address books
of PCs and transmit these addresses to spammers.
Another way to garner email addresses is through dictionary attacks (also called
directory harvest attacks). Spammers bombard Internet service providers with millions
of emails containing made-up addresses, such as AdamA@isprovider.com, AdamB@
isprovider.com, AdamC@isprovider.com, and so on. Of course, most of these emails will
bounce back, because the addresses are no good. However, if an email doesn’t bounce,
the spammer knows there is a user with that email address and adds it to its mailing list.
Sometimes people voluntarily reveal their email address. Have you ever entered
a contest on the Web? There is a good chance the fine print on the entry form said
you agree to receive “occasional offers of products you might find valuable” from the
company’s marketing partners; in other words, spam [10]. Sign-ups for email lists often
contain this fine print, too.
How can spammers send out so many email messages? About 90 percent of spam
is sent out by bot herders: people who are able to take control of huge networks of
computers. Bot herders create these networks by launching programs that search the
Internet for computers with inadequate security and install software robot programs,
called bots, on these vulnerable systems. A computer with the bot program installed
on it is called a zombie because it can be directed by a remote computer to perform
certain tasks. Bot herders can send out billions of email messages every day by dividing
the address lists among hundreds of thousands of zombies they control [11].
To deal with this deluge, ISPs install spam filters to block spam from reaching users’
mailboxes. These filters look for a large number of messages coming from the same email
address, messages with suspicious subject lines, or messages with spamlike content.
3.2.2 Need for Social-Technical Solutions
As we saw in Chapter 1, new technologies sometimes cause new social situations to
emerge. The spam epidemic is an example of this phenomenon. The Internet allows
people to send email messages for virtually no cost. Because a spammer’s profits increase
as the number of sent messages increases, every spammer has an incentive to send as
many messages as possible.
The spam problem arose because the Internet and email technology developed
without taking social expectations into account. The design of the Internet allows so-
phisticated users to disguise their own email addresses. Spammers take advantage of this
loophole to send out millions of messages, knowing that unhappy recipients will not be
able to respond. This is contrary to a fundamental social expectation: fairness. In order
to be fair, communications should be two-way, not one-way [12].
114 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
3.2.3 Case Study: Ann the Acme Accountant
Ann is an accountant at Acme Corporation, a medium-sized firm with 50 employees.
All of the employees work in the same building, and Ann knows all of them on a first-
name basis. In fact, Ann distributes paychecks to Acme’s employees at the end of every
month.
Ann’s 10-year-old daughter is a Girl Scout. During the annual Girl Scout cookie sale,
Ann sent an email to all of the other Acme employees, inviting them to stop by her desk
during a break and place orders. (There is no company rule prohibiting the use of the
email system for personal emails.) Nine of the recipients were happy to get Ann’s email,
and they ordered an average of four boxes of cookies, but the other 40 recipients did not
appreciate having to take the time to read and delete an unwanted message; half of them
complained to a coworker about Ann’s action.
Did Ann do anything wrong?
KANTIAN ANALYSIS
According to the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we should always
respect the autonomy of other people, treating them as ends in themselves and never
only as the means to an end. The story provides evidence that Ann was not simply
“using” her coworkers as the means to her end of making money for the Girl Scouts. She
didn’t misrepresent what she was doing. She didn’t force anyone to buy the cookies or
even read the entire email; employees not interested in Girl Scout cookies could simply
delete Ann’s message as soon as they read the subject line. Some people who received
the email freely chose to buy some cookies. Therefore, what Ann did wasn’t strictly
wrong.
On the other hand, if Ann had found a way for those people interested in hearing
about the Girl Scout cookie drive to “opt in” to her announcement, those people not
interested in purchasing Girl Scout cookies would not have been bothered by her email.
An “opt in” approach would have been better because it would have shown more respect
for the autonomy of Ann’s coworkers.
ACT UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
We will do our evaluation in terms of dollars and cents, quantifying the benefits and
costs of Ann’s action. Let’s begin with the benefits. A box of cookies costs $4 and pro-
vides $3 of profit to the Girl Scouts. Someone who buys a box of Girl Scout cookies
understands it is a fund-raising activity and is happy with what he receives for $4. Since
the cost of $4 is matched with $4 of benefit, they cancel each other out in our analysis,
and we do not have to worry about this factor anymore. The average employee who par-
ticipated in the sale purchased four boxes of cookies. Nine employees participated, which
means Ann sold 36 boxes of cookies and provided $108 of benefit to the Girl Scouts.
Now let’s look at the harms. The principal harm is going to be the time wasted
by Acme’s employees. Ann took orders and made deliveries during coffee or lunch
breaks, rather than on company time, so our focus is on the 40 employees who did
not appreciate getting Ann’s solicitation. It’s reasonable to assume that they spent an
3.2 Spam 115
average of 15 seconds reading and deleting the message. That adds up to 10 minutes of
lost productivity.
Half of the employees spent 5 minutes complaining about what Ann did with a
coworker. You can imagine the typical conversation. “What makes her so special?” “How
does she get away with this kind of thing?” “If I did this for my kid, I’d get in trouble.”
Taking both the employee’s time and the coworker’s time into account, Acme loses 10
minutes of productivity for each conversation. Multiplying 10 minutes by 20 conversa-
tions gives us 200 minutes.
The total time wasted equals 210 minutes or 3.5 hours. Assume the average Acme
employee makes $20 per hour. The cost of the lost productivity is 3.5 hours times $20
per hour or $70.
The benefit of $108 exceeds the cost of $70, so we may conclude that Ann’s action
was good. We should note, however, that all of the benefit went to the Girls Scouts and
all of the cost was borne by Acme Corporation. It would be perfectly reasonable if the
owners of Acme Corporation concluded that this kind of activity was not in the best
interests of the company and created a new policy forbidding the use of company email
for cookie drives and other fund-raisers.
RULE UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
What would be the consequences if everyone used the company email system to solicit
donations to their favorite causes? All the employees would receive many more messages
unrelated to business. There would be plenty of grumbling among employees, lowering
morale. Reading and deleting these solicitations would waste people’s time, a definite
harm. It’s unlikely that any one cause would do well if everyone was trying to raise money
for his or her own charity. There is a good chance the owner would become aware of this
problem, and a logical response would be to ban employees from sending out this kind
of solicitation. Because the harms are much greater than the benefits, it is wrong to use
the company email system to solicit donations to a charity.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY ANALYSIS
Acme Corporation does not have a prohibition against using the company’s email system
for personal business. You could say that by sending out her email solicitation, Ann was
exercising her right to free speech. Of course, she did it in a way that many people might
find obnoxious, because even if they did not choose to read her entire message, they had
to take the time to scan the subject line and delete it. Unlike spammers, however, Ann
did not disguise her identity as the sender, thereby providing unhappy recipients with
the opportunity to respond to her email and voice their disapproval of her solicitation.
If many of the 40 people who did not appreciate receiving her email sent a reply commu-
nicating their displeasure, then Ann got a taste of her own medicine by having to wade
through a bunch of unwanted email messages, and she may choose a better method of
advertising the Girl Scout cookie drive next year. From a social contract theory point of
view, Ann did nothing wrong.
116 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
VIRTUE ETHICS ANALYSIS
Good coworkers exhibit many virtues, including honesty, dependability, fairness, friend-
liness, and respect for coworkers. Three that seem particularly important for this case
study are honesty, fairness, and respect. Ann demonstrated honesty by being completely
straightforward about the Girl Scout cookie drive with her fellow employees. However, it
wasn’t fair or respectful for Ann to use the email system to promote her own daughter’s
fund-raiser when other employees have not used email for similar solicitations for their
children. Ann clearly exercised poor judgment when she sent the email, since half of the
company’s employees felt the need to complain about it.
Looking at this scenario from a completely different angle, we consider Ann in her
role as a parent. Good parents want what is best for their children, and Ann was un-
doubtedly thinking of her daughter’s welfare when she decided to sell the Girl Scout
cookies at her workplace. Perhaps her daughter has a quota to meet, or perhaps nice
prizes are given to those who sell enough boxes of cookies. Viewed in this light, Ann’s
actions seem consistent with those of a loving parent. However, parents are also sup-
posed to teach their children how to develop into capable and independent adults. Ann
could have used the cookie sale as an opportunity to teach her daughter some of those
lessons. After all, her daughter is 10 years old, certainly old enough to handle many of
the tasks. Instead, Ann ran the entire cookie sale operation herself and simply handed
her daughter the proceeds.
We conclude Ann demonstrated many, but not all, of the characteristics of a good
coworker and a good parent in this episode. If Ann wanted to help her 10-year-old
daughter sell cookies, fine, but she should have found a way for her daughter to play
a more active role in the cookie sale at Acme Corporation. For example, her daughter
could have come in after school one day to deliver the cookies to the people who ordered
them and collect their payments. In this way Ann’s daughter could have gained the
satisfaction of knowing she had contributed a good portion of the time and effort
needed to achieve the desired result. Furthermore, Ann should have found another way
to advertise the sale that respected her workplace’s culture of keeping the email system
free from solicitations.
SUMMARY
Although the analyses of Ann’s action from the perspectives of these five ethical theories
reached different conclusions, it is clear she could have taken another course of action
that would have been much less controversial. Since Ann has only 49 coworkers, it
would not have been too difficult for her to find out who wanted to be notified the
next time the Girl Scouts were selling cookies. She could have put a sign-up sheet on
her desk or the company bulletin board, for example. By notifying only those people
who signed up, Ann’s emails would have been solicited and personal. She could still take
advantage of the efficiency of the email system without anyone objecting that she was
“using” coworkers or contributing to lost productivity, meaning there would be much
less chance of the company instituting a policy forbidding the use of its email system for
fund-raising activities. Finally, Ann could have found a way to share the work with her
daughter.
3.3 Internet Interactions 117
3.3 Internet Interactions
The Internet mediates communications and commerce among more than two billion
people. In this section we review just a few of the myriad number of ways people are
using the Internet to interact with others and gain access to information.
3.3.1 The World Wide Web
The creation of the World Wide Web stimulated a tremendous growth in the popularity
of the Internet. Its creator, Tim Berners-Lee, initially proposed the Web as a documen-
tation system for CERN, the Swiss research center for particle physics, but the creation
of easy-to-use Web browsers made the Web accessible to “ordinary” computer users as
well [13]. The Web is a hypertext system: a flexible database of information that allows
Web pages to be linked to each other in arbitrary fashion. Web browsers such as Chrome,
Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari allow people to traverse this hypertext system with
ease.
Two attributes enabled the Web to become a global tool for information exchange.
First, it is decentralized. An individual or organization can add new information to the
Web without asking for permission from a central authority. Second, every object on
the Web has a unique address. Any object can link to any other object by referencing its
address. A Web object’s address is called a URL (uniform resource locator).
3.3.2 The Rise of the App
People are spending more time on smartphones and tablets and less time on laptop or
desktop computers. Using Web browsers on mobile devices can be awkward, and for
this reason organizations are developing mobile apps: software programs that are loaded
onto mobile devices. Some mobile apps are standalone programs, but others connect to
the Internet, allowing people to download and upload data. Mobile apps are becoming
an increasingly popular way to access the Internet because they can be optimized to make
best use of a mobile device’s resources (limited screen size, touch interface, etc.) [14].
3.3.3 How We Use the Internet
Intuitive Web browsers and mobile apps have made the Internet accessible to people
with little or no formal computer training. Today millions of people access the Internet
for a wide variety of purposes. Here are just a few examples of how people are using the
Internet.
1. We shop.
Shopping sites enable us to view and order merchandise from the comfort of our
homes. Forrester Research predicts that products purchased online in the United
States will grow from 6 percent of all retail sales in 2009 to 8 percent in 2014 [15].
2. We socialize.
The Internet has become a popular way for friends to keep in touch with each other.
The most popular social network is Facebook, with more than 1.1 billion active
118 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
users in March 2013. Another well-known social network is LinkedIn, which serves
people looking for professional contacts.
In 2012 the Dutch airline KLM launched a program that allows ticketed pas-
sengers who have uploaded information from their Facebook or LinkedIn profiles
to select seatmates based on the profiles provided by other passengers [16].
3. We contribute content.
Popular apps allow people to upload videos, photos, podcasts, or other digital
content. Instagram, with more than 100 million subscribers, allows its users to
upload photos and videos and share them on social networking services, such as
Facebook.
A wiki is a Web site that allows multiple people to contribute and edit its con-
tent. The most famous wiki is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Relying on the
submissions of hundreds of thousands of volunteers, Wikipedia has become by far
the largest encyclopedia in the world. More than forty languages are represented by
at least 100,000 articles, but by far the most popular language is English, with more
than 4.2 million articles written as of 2013. However, critics wonder about the qual-
ity of a reference work that allows anyone with a Web browser to contribute [17].
4. We blog.
A blog (short for “Web log”) is a personal journal or diary kept on the Web. Used
as a verb, the word blog means to maintain such a journal. Blogs may contain plain
text, images, audio clips, or video clips [18].
Some commentators use the term Web 2.0 to refer to a change in the way people
use the Web. Social networking services, wikis, Flickr, Reddit, and blogs illustrate
that many people are now using the Web not simply to download content but to
build communities and upload and share content they have created.
5. We help each other avoid traffic jams.
People who load the Waze app onto their smartphones and allow this app to run
while they are driving automatically send their car’s GPS coordinates to Waze, which
can compute the vehicle speeds and then send information about traffic congestion
back to Waze users [19]. Waze’s app to collect information from commuters is an
example of crowdsourcing: an online method of getting information or ideas from
a large group of people.
6. We learn.
In 2001 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched its OpenCourseWare
initiative. Since then, the quantity and quality of freely available classes posted
online has increased steadily. The potential for Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs) provided by edX, Coursera, and Udacity to disrupt traditional university
education is being widely debated [20].
7. We explore our roots.
In the past, genealogists interested in accessing American immigration and census
records had the choice between mailing in their requests and waiting for them to be
processed or visiting the National Archives and examining the documents by hand.
3.3 Internet Interactions 119
Figure 3.3 The US National Archives and Records Administration has simplified the work
of genealogists by putting millions of records online. (Courtesy of The National Archives)
Now that the National Archives has put more than 50 million historical records
online, the same searches can be performed remotely—and much more quickly—
over the Internet (Figure 3.3) [21].
8. We enter virtual worlds.
An online game is a game played on a computer network that supports the simulta-
neous participation of multiple players. A persistent online game is an online game
in which each player assumes the role of a character in a virtual world and the at-
tributes of the character and the world persist beyond a single gaming session. The
most popular persistent online game is World of Warcraft, with more than ten mil-
lion monthly subscribers worldwide [22]. At times, the number of simultaneous
players in China alone has reached one million [23].
Another hub of persistent online gaming is South Korea. Cybercafes (called
PC bangs in South Korea) have large-screen monitors enabling spectators to watch
the gameplay, which is full of virtual violence and mayhem. Some children spend
up to 10 hours a day playing games, hoping to turn professional. Kim Hyun Soo,
chairman of the Net Addiction Treatment Center, complains that “young people are
losing their ability to relate to each other, except through games” [24]. We discuss
the topic of Internet addiction in Section 3.9.
The phenomenon of global online gaming has created a real economy based
on virtual worlds. Some people are making a living playing persistent online games.
120 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
Chinese “gold farmers” who work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week can earn $3,000 a
year killing monsters, harvesting virtual gold coins and artifacts, creating powerful
avatars, and selling them over the Internet [25].
9. We control the Internet of Things.
An increasing number of non-IT devices—thermostats, appliances, lights, motion
sensors, door locks, garage door openers, and baby monitors, to name just a few
examples—are being equipped with wireless connections to the Internet, forming
an Internet of Things. These devices can be controlled from a Web browser, allow-
ing people to control them even when they are not at home.
More significantly, some Internet-connected devices can be programmed to
interact with each other without human intervention. Imagine devices at home that
can monitor the GPS coordinates of your smartphone. You’re driving home after
a long, hot day at work. When your car is 15 minutes away from home, the air
conditioning in your home turns on. You turn onto your street, and your porch
lights turn on. As you pull into your driveway, the garage door opens automatic-
ally [26].
10. We pay our taxes.
About 100 million Americans now file their federal income tax returns online [27].
11. We gamble.
Internet gambling is a $32-billion-a-year global business [28]. Running an Internet-
based casino is illegal in most states. As a result, many American émigrés are oper-
ating gambling sites from the Caribbean or Central America [29].
12. We take humanitarian action.
Kiva is a Web site supporting person-to-person microlending. Kiva works with
microfinance institutions to identify entrepreneurs from poor communities, and
it posts information about these entrepreneurs on its Web site. People who wish
to make an interest-free loan are able to identify the particular person to whom
they would like to lend money. Lenders have the ability to communicate with the
entrepreneurs and see the impact their loans are having on the recipients, their
families, and their communities [30].
3.4 Text Messaging
Text messaging greatly increases the versatility of cell phones as information-sharing
platforms. Some of the most impressive uses of text messaging are in developing coun-
tries, where people do not have easy access to the Internet, banks, and other services
taken for granted by people in more developed countries.
3.4.1 Transforming Lives in Developing Countries
Text-message-based services such as M-PESA in Kenya allow people in developing coun-
tries to save money and pay bills using their cell phones, bypassing traditional banks. To
3.4 Text Messaging 121
pay a bill or transfer funds to a friend, the user simply types a text message that the
recipient is able to turn into cash at any M-PESA office.
For the past decade, Kenya’s Agricultural Commodities Exchange has partnered
with Safaricom to provide information about crop prices to farmers via a text messaging
service. Another service, iCow, uses voice and text messaging to help dairy farmers keep
track of the gestation of their cows [31].
Counterfeit medicine is a serious problem in many African and Asian countries.
Ghanian Bright Simons came up with the idea of putting scratch cards with unique codes
on packages of medicine. After scratching the package to reveal the code, a customer can
text the code to a designated number to learn if the drug is genuine [31].
3.4.2 Twitter
Twitter is a Web-based social networking service that allows its users to send out text
messages known as tweets. Tweets are limited to 140 characters because that’s the max-
imum length of a cell phone text message. The service is popular because people who
want their friends to know what they are doing find it more convenient to post a single
tweet than to type a bunch of text messages. Many people also use Twitter as a blogging
tool; they make their tweets public so that anyone can read them. Other Twitter mem-
bers never post tweets, but they sign up to follow the tweets posted by other people they
are interested in.
More than 200 million people use Twitter, making it one of the most popular Web
services in the world [32]. Users posted 7,196 tweets per second at the conclusion of
the exciting World Cup Final soccer match between the United States and Japan in 2011
[33].
3.4.3 Business Promotion
When carpenter Curtis Kimball started a part-time business running a crème brûlée cart
in San Francisco, he used Twitter to let people know the cart’s location and the flavors of
the day. Before long, he had attracted 5,400 followers. Business became so good he quit
his day job in order to keep up with demand. Many tiny businesses with no money for
advertising rely upon Twitter as their only marketing tool [34].
3.4.4 Political Activism
Text messaging played an important role in the ouster of Philippine president Joseph
Estrada in 2001. During his impeachment trial, his political allies in the Philippine
Congress voted to keep some evidence against him from being revealed. Filipinos who
hoped to see President Estrada convicted used text messaging to organize a demonstra-
tion on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Manila. Over the next couple of days, mil-
lions more text messages were sent and forwarded—many reading “Go 2 EDSA. Wear
blk.”—and the crowd rose to more than one million people. Intimidated by the size of
122 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
the protest, Estrada’s supporters in the Philippine Congress changed their votes and al-
lowed the incriminating evidence against President Estrada to be released. Within hours,
Estrada’s presidency was over [35].
Ten years later, Twitter and Facebook played a highly visible role in the “Arab
Spring” demonstrations that led to revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, a civil war in Libya,
and protests in many other Arab countries. In the midst of the protests in Cairo in 2011
that led to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, one protester tweeted, “We use
Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world”
[36]. Arab news organization Al Jazeera created a “Twitter Dashboard” indicating the
level of tweeting activity in many Arab nations where there was unrest [37].
Scholars of the Arab Spring uprisings point to an interesting phenomenon: People
started using online social networks such as Twitter in order to keep up with their
friends, but these interactions caused them to become politicized. Through these net-
works, bloggers met new people, became exposed to new ideas, and developed an inter-
est in human rights [38].
Others think the role of social media in catalyzing social change has been overblown.
They argue that social networks like Twitter and Facebook are great at building networks
of people with weak connections to each other, but high-risk activism requires strong
ties among the members of a hierarchical organization [39].
3.5 Censorship
Censorship is the attempt to suppress or regulate public access to material considered of-
fensive or harmful. Historically, most censorship has been exercised by governments and
religious institutions. For example, Roman censors banished the poets Ovid and Juvenal
for their writings. During the Middle Ages the Inquisition suppressed the publication of
many books, including the work of Galileo Galilei.
Censorship became a much more complicated issue with the invention of the print-
ing press. The printing press broke the virtual monopoly held by governments and
religious institutions on distributing material to a large audience, and the increase in
printed material resulted in a greater number of literate people. For the first time, pri-
vate individuals could broadcast their ideas to others on a wide scale.
In Western democracies, the gradual separation of church and state left the govern-
ment as the sole institution responsible for censorship. In other parts of the world, such
as the Middle East, religious institutions continue to play a significant role in determin-
ing what material should be accessible to the public.
3.5.1 Direct Censorship
Direct censorship has three forms: government monopolization, prepublication review,
and licensing and registration.
The first form of direct censorship is government monopolization. In the former
Soviet Union, for example, the government owned all the television stations, radio sta-
3.5 Censorship 123
tions, and newspapers. Private organizations could not even own a photocopy machine.
Government monopolization is an effective way to suppress the flow of information.
Modern computer and communication technology makes government monopolization
much more difficult than in the past.
Prepublication review is the second form of direct censorship. This form of censor-
ship is essential for material the government wishes to keep secret, such as information
about its nuclear weapons program. Most governments have laws restricting the pub-
lication of information that would harm the national security. In addition, autocratic
governments typically block publication of material deemed injurious to the reputations
of their rulers.
The third form of direct censorship is licensing and registration. This form of cen-
sorship is typically used to control media with limited bandwidth. For example, there
are a limited number of radio and television stations that can be accommodated on the
electromagnetic spectrum. Hence a radio or television station must obtain a license to
broadcast at a particular frequency. Licensing invites censorship. For example, the US
Federal Communications Commission has banned the use of certain four-letter words.
This led to a challenge that went all the way to the US Supreme Court, as we see in
Section 3.6.3.
3.5.2 Self-Censorship
Perhaps the most common form of censorship is self-censorship: a group deciding for
itself not to publish material. In some countries a publisher may censor itself in order
to avoid persecution. For example, after US-led forces toppled the regime of Saddam
Hussein in April 2003, CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan, admitted that CNN
had suppressed negative information about the actions of the Iraqi government for more
than a decade in order to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and protect Iraqi employees
of CNN [40].
In other countries, publishers may want to maintain good relations with govern-
ment officials. Publications compete with each other for access to information. Often
this information is available only from government sources. Publishers know that if they
offend the government, their reporters may not be given access to as much informa-
tion as reporters for rival publications, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. This
knowledge can lead a “free” press to censor itself.
Publishers have adopted ratings systems as a way of helping people decide if they
(or their children) should access particular offerings. For example, television stations in
the United States broadcast shows with “mature content” late in the evening. Voluntary
rating systems help people decide if they (or their children) will see a movie, watch a
television show, or listen to a CD.
The Web does not have a universally accepted ratings system. Some Web sites prac-
tice a form of labeling. For example, the home page may warn the user that the site
contains nudity and require the user to click on an “I agree” button to enter the site.
However, other sites have no such warnings. People who stumble onto these sites are
immediately confronted with images and text they may find offensive.
124 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
3.5.3 Challenges Posed by the Internet
Five characteristics of the Internet make censorship more difficult:
1. Unlike traditional one-to-many broadcast media, the Internet supports many-to-many
communications.
While it is relatively easy for a government to shut down a newspaper or a radio
station, it is very difficult for a government to prevent an idea from being published
on the Internet, where millions of people have the ability to post Web pages.
2. The Internet is dynamic.
Millions of new computers are being connected to the Internet each year.
3. The Internet is huge.
There is simply no way for a team of human censors to keep track of everything
that is posted on the Web. While automated tools are available, they are fallible.
Hence any attempt to control access to material stored on the Internet cannot be
100 percent effective.
4. The Internet is global.
National governments have limited authority to restrict activities happening outside
their borders.
5. It is hard to distinguish between children and adults on the Internet.
How can an “adult” Web site verify the age of someone attempting to enter the site?
3.5.4 Government Filtering and Surveillance of Internet Content
Despite the difficulties facing those who would seek to censor Internet content, studies
reveal that governments around the globe are in fact limiting access to the Internet in a
variety of ways [41].
One approach is to make the Internet virtually inaccessible. The governments of
Cuba and North Korea make it difficult for ordinary citizens to use the Internet to
communicate with the rest of the world [42, 43].
In other countries, Internet access is easier but still carefully controlled. Saudi Ara-
bians gained access to the Internet in 1999, after the government installed a centralized
control center outside Riyadh. Virtually all Internet traffic flows through this control
center, which blocks pornography sites, gambling sites, and many other pages deemed
to be offensive to Islam or the government of Saudi Arabia [44]. Blocked sites and pages
are from such diverse categories as Christian evangelism, women’s health and sexuality
issues, music and movies, gay rights, Middle Eastern politics, and information about
ways to circumvent Web filtering.
The Chinese government has blocked access to the Internet during times of social
unrest. For example, in July 2009, China responded to ethnic riots in the autonomous
region of Xinjiang by turning off Internet service to the entire region for ten months
[45, 46].
China has also built one of the world’s most sophisticated Web filtering systems
[47]. The Great Firewall of China prevents Chinese citizens from accessing certain In-
3.5 Censorship 125
ternet content by blocking messages coming from blacklisted sites. The government
employs human censors to identify sites that should be blacklisted [48]. Among the
Web sites blacklisted by the government include those containing pornography, those
associated with the Dalai Lama or the Falun Gong, those referring to the 1989 military
crackdown, and those run by certain news organizations, such as Voice of America and
BBC News. Before the 2008 Summer Olympics, the International Olympic Committee
assured journalists that they would have unfettered access to the Internet during their
stay in Beijing, but once the journalists arrived in Beijing, they discovered that many
sites were blocked. The International Olympic Committee admitted that it had agreed
to allow to be blocked sensitive sites “not considered Games related” [49]. Some con-
tend that blogs and nongovernmental Web sites are eroding the Chinese government’s
ability to restrict the communications of its citizens [48], but the government has not
given up. The government continues to shut down Web sites and censor blogs that it
finds contrary to the interests of the state.
Meanwhile, Western nations have different standards about what is acceptable and
what is not. For example, Germany forbids access to any neo-Nazi Web site, but Web
surfers in the United States can access many such sites.
Political satire and pornography are easily available through American ISPs. Ameri-
cans are used to political satire, but many citizens are concerned about the corrupting in-
fluence of pornography, particularly with respect to minors. Since 1996 the US Congress
has passed three laws aimed at restricting access of children to sexually explicit materials
on the Web: the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and
the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The first two laws were ruled unconstitutional by
the US Supreme Court; the third was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2003.
3.5.5 Ethical Perspectives on Censorship
It is interesting that Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, who had quite different ethical
theories, had similar views regarding censorship.
KANT’S VIEWS ON CENSORSHIP
As a thinker in the tradition of the Enlightenment, Kant’s motto was, “Have courage
to use your own reason” [50]. Kant asks the rhetorical question, “Why don’t people
think for themselves?” and answers it: “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so
great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external
direction, nevertheless remain under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to
set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which
understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my
diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay—others
will readily undertake the irksome work for me” [50, p. 85].
The Enlightenment was a reaction to the institutional control over thought held
by the aristocracy and the Church. Kant believed he was living in a time in which the
obstacles preventing people from exercising their own reason were being removed. He
opposed censorship as a backward step.
126 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
MILL’S VIEWS ON CENSORSHIP
John Stuart Mill also championed freedom of expression. He gave four reasons why
freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression of opinion, were necessary.
First, none of us is infallible. All of us are capable of error. If we prevent someone
from voicing their opinion, we may actually be silencing the voice of truth.
Second, while the opinion expressed by someone may be erroneous, it may yet
contain a kernel of truth. In general, the majority opinion is not the whole truth. We
ought to let all opinions be voiced so that all parts of the truth are heard.
Third, even if the majority opinion should happen to be the whole truth, it is in
the clash of ideas that this truth is rationally tested and validated. The whole truth left
untested is simply a prejudice.
Fourth, an opinion that has been tested in the fire of a free and open discourse is
more likely to have a “vital effect on the character and conduct” [51, p. 61].
Therefore, Mill, like Kant, fundamentally supported the free exchange of ideas, with
the conviction that good ideas would prevail over bad ones. Applying their philosophy
to the World Wide Web, it seems they would support the free exchange of opinions and
oppose any kind of government censorship of opinions.
MILL’S PRINCIPLE OF HARM
However, a lack of government censorship can also lead to harm. Under what circum-
stances should the government intervene? Mill proposed the principle of harm as a way
of deciding when an institution should intervene in the conduct of an individual.
�
Principle of Harm
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
not a sufficient warrant.” [51, p. 12]
�
In other words, the government should not get involved in the private activities
of individuals, even if the individuals are doing something to harm themselves. Only
if individuals’ activities are harming other people should the government step in.
The principle of harm can be used to explain the position of most Western demo-
cratic governments with respect to censoring pornographic material depicting adults.
Some ethicists conclude it is not wrong for adults to view pornography depicting adults.
Others hold that this activity is immoral. If the activity is immoral, it is more certain the
harm is being done to the individual consumer; less certain is how much harm is being
done to other people. Hence the principle of harm can be used as an argument why the
government should not be trying to prevent adults from using pornography depicting
adults.
3.6 Freedom of Expression 127
3.6 Freedom of Expression
In the United States, freedom of expression is one of the most cherished—and most
controversial—rights. In this section we explain the history behind the adoption of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We also explore why the freedom
of expression has not been treated as an absolute right.
3.6.1 History
At the time of the American Revolution, any criticism of government was seen as a threat
to public order and could result in fines and/or imprisonment. Restrictions on freedom
of speech in England date back to 1275 and a law called De Scandalis Magnatum.
According to this law, a person could be imprisoned for spreading stories about the
King that could have the effect of weakening the loyalty of his subjects. The scope of
the law became much broader through numerous revisions over the next two centuries.
Eventually it encompassed seditious words and words spoken against a wide variety of
government officials, including justices [52].
De Scandalis Magnatum was administered by the Court of Star Chamber, or “Star
Chamber” for short. The Star Chamber reported directly to the King, and it did not
have to obey traditional rules of evidence. Rulings of the Star Chamber demonstrated
that a person could be convicted for making a verbal insult or for something written in
a private letter. The Star Chamber was abolished in 1641, but the law continued to be
enforced through Common Law courts [52].
At the end of the eighteenth century, freedom of the press in England and its
colonies meant freedom to print without a license. In other words, there were no prior
restraints on publication. People could publish what they pleased. However, those
who published material found to be seditious or libelous would face severe conse-
quences [52].
The law against libel simply considered if the material printed was harmful; arguing
that the information was true was not relevant to the proceedings and could not be
used in a publisher’s defense. Between 1760 and the end of the American Revolution,
about 50 people were successfully prosecuted for libel. To prevent such prosecutions
from continuing, most states adopted bills of rights after gaining independence from
England [52].
In May 1787, delegates from the thirteen states gathered in Philadelphia to revise the
Articles of Confederation. Soon they were drafting a completely new Constitution. Del-
egate George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, strongly opposed the
proposed Constitution because it contained no declaration of the rights of the citizens.
Patrick Henry and other political leaders shared Mason’s objections [52].
While the proposed Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states, most state legis-
latures adopted the Constitution with the expectation that Congress would offer amend-
ments addressing the human rights concerns brought up by the opponents of the Con-
stitution. During the first Congress, James Madison proposed 12 such amendments. All
12 of these amendments were sent to the states for ratification. Of these 12 amendments,
10 were quickly ratified. Today these 10 amendments are commonly known as the Bill of
128 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
Rights. The first of these amendments, the one Madison considered most essential, was
the one guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press [52].
�
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
�
3.6.2 Freedom of Expression Not an Absolute Right
The primary purpose of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee is political. Free
speech allows an open discussion of public issues. It helps make government responsive
to the will of the people [53].
However, the First Amendment right to free expression is not limited to political
speech. Nonpolitical speech is also covered (Figure 3.4). There are good reasons for
Figure 3.4 Jeremy Jaynes was convicted under Virginia law for sending millions of spam
messages. His conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Virginia because the
antispam law was too broad and also prohibited the anonymous transmission of unsolicited
bulk emails “containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution” [55]. (AP photo/Loudoun County sheriff ’s office)
3.6 Freedom of Expression 129
protecting nonpolitical as well as political speech. First, it is sometimes hard to draw
the line between the two. Asking a judge to make the distinction turns it into a political
decision. Second, society can benefit from nonpolitical as well as political speech. Hence
the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment also promotes scientific and artistic
expression. For the same reason, the definition of “speech” encompasses more than
words. Protected “speech” includes art and certain kinds of conduct, such as burning
an American flag [54].
Decisions by the US Supreme Court have made clear that freedom of expression is
not an absolute right. Instead, the private right to freedom of expression must be bal-
anced against the public good. Those who abuse this freedom and harm the public may
be punished. For example, protection is not given to “libel, reckless or calculated lies,
slander, misrepresentation, perjury, false advertising, obscenity and profanity, solicita-
tion of crime, and personal abuse or ‘fighting’ words,” because these actions do not serve
the ends of the First Amendment [53].
Various restrictions on freedom of speech are justified because of the greater public
good that results. For example, US law prohibits cigarette advertising on television
because cigarette smoking has detrimental effects on public health. Some cities use
zoning laws to concentrate adult bookstores in a single part of town because the presence
of adult bookstores lowers property values and increases crime.
3.6.3 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
To illustrate limits to First Amendment protections, we consider the decision of the US
Supreme Court in the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
et al.
In 1973 George Carlin recorded a performance made in front of a live audience in
California. One track on the resulting record is a 12-minute monologue called “Filthy
Words.” In the monologue Carlin lists seven words that “you couldn’t say on the public,
ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn’t say, ever” [56]. The audience laughs as
Carlin spends the rest of the monologue creating colloquialisms from the list of banned
words.
On the afternoon of October 30, 1973, counterculture radio station WBAI in New
York aired “Filthy Words” after warning listeners the monologue contained “sensitive
language which might be regarded as offensive to some” [57]. A few weeks after the
broadcast, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received a complaint from
a man who had heard the broadcast on his car radio in the presence of his son. In
response to this complaint, the FCC issued a declaratory order and informed Pacifica
Foundation (the operator of WBAI) that the order would be placed in the station’s
license file. The FCC warned Pacifica Foundation that further complaints could lead to
sanctions.
Pacifica sued the FCC, and the resulting legal battle reached the US Supreme Court.
In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the FCC did not violate the First
Amendment [57]. The majority opinion states, “Of all forms of communication, it is
broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection.” There are
two reasons why broadcasters have less protection than booksellers or theater owners:
130 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
1. “Broadcast media have a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.” [57]
Offensive, indecent material is broadcast into the privacy of citizens’ homes. Since
people can change stations or turn their radios on or off at any time, prior warnings
cannot completely protect people from being exposed to offensive material. While
someone may turn off the radio after hearing something indecent, that does not
undo a harm that has already occurred.
2. “Broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.” [57]
In contrast, restricting children’s access to offensive or indecent material is possible
in bookstores and movie theaters.
The majority emphasized that its ruling was a narrow one and that the context of the
broadcast was all-important. The time of day at which the broadcast occurred (2 p.m.)
was an important consideration, because that affected the composition of the listening
audience.
3.6.4 Case Study: Kate’s Blog
Kate is a journalism major who maintains a popular blog focusing on campus life. Kate
attends a private birthday party in someone’s apartment for her friend Jerry, a college
student active in the Whig Party on campus. Someone gives Jerry a Tory Party T-shirt as
a gag gift, and Jerry puts it on. Kate uses her cell phone to get a picture of Jerry wearing
the T-shirt when he is looking the other way. Jerry gives Kate a ride home after the party,
but she does not tell him about the photo. When she is back in her apartment, she posts
the photo on her blog. In the blog she identifies Jerry and explains the context in which
the photo was taken.
The story is read by many people both on and off campus. The next day Jerry
confronts Kate, yells at her for posting the photo, and demands that she remove it from
her Web site. Kate complies with Jerry’s request by removing the photo, and the two of
them remain friends. As a result of the incident, Jerry becomes more popular on campus,
and the number of people who read Kate’s blog increases.
Was it wrong for Kate to post the picture of Jerry on her blog without first getting
his permission?
KANTIAN ANALYSIS
By uploading Jerry’s photo to her blog without first asking his permission, Kate didn’t
respect Jerry’s autonomy. Instead, she treated him as a means to her end of increasing
the readership of her Web site. Therefore, her action was wrong according to the second
formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY ANALYSIS
The birthday party was held in the apartment of one of Jerry’s friends. In this private
setting and among friends Jerry had a legitimate expectation that what happened during
the party would not be broadcast to the world. By secretly taking a photo of Jerry doing
something out of character and posting that photo on her blog, Kate violated Jerry’s
right to privacy. For this reason Kate’s action was wrong.
3.6 Freedom of Expression 131
ACT UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
We need to determine the positive and negative consequences of Kate’s action on the two
people involved. Kate increased the popularity of her blog, which is precisely the positive
outcome she wanted (+10). Jerry’s anger at Kate shows that he was hurt and upset by
what she did, but after he confronted her, she removed the photo from her Web site
and they reconciled. Therefore, while the intensity of this negative consequence to Jerry
was significant, its duration was brief (−5). As a result of the posting, Jerry became more
popular on campus, a very good thing for someone active in campus politics (+10). Jerry
had Kate to thank for this boost in his popularity, further quenching the unhappiness he
initially felt when he learned what she had done (+2). We conclude that the short-term
consequences for both Kate and Jerry were positive (totaling +17).
The long-term consequences are difficult to determine. It is possible that the photo
could land in the wrong hands and be used to discredit Jerry someday in the future
(−100), but this would depend on many factors. Jerry is currently politically active. Is he
going to stay active in Whig politics after he graduates from college (50%)? The photo
was only on the Web for a day. Did anyone download it (20%)? If so, what is the chance
that someday the photo will fall into the hands of someone who wants to make Jerry
look bad (10%)?
An important part of a utilitarian analysis is looking at the certainty of each conse-
quence: in other words, the probability that it will happen. The short-term consequences
of Kate’s action are certainly positive for both Kate and Jerry (+17 × 100% = +17). The
long-term negative consequences, if any, are not certain at all (−100 × 50% × 20% ×
10% = −1). Adding the calculated short-term benefits (+17) to the calculated long-term
harms (−1) yields a total benefit of 16, and we conclude her action had a good outcome.
RULE UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
Let’s consider what would happen if everyone were constantly taking photos of everyone
they bumped into and posting them on the Web. There would be some positive conse-
quences. It would be easier for people to see what their friends were up to. People might
be more reluctant to engage in illegal activities if they thought photo or video evidence
might appear on the Web. There would also be a variety of negative consequences. Once
people started to feel as if they were always being photographed, they would become self-
conscious, making it more difficult for them to simply be themselves. People would be
less free to take off their public persona and express their true feelings. Inevitably people
would post photos that caused hard feelings and led to strained relationships. Ultimately
the negative consequences seem to be more weighty than the positive consequences, and
we conclude Kate’s action was wrong.
VIRTUE ETHICS ANALYSIS
Kate and Jerry are friends. Aristotle recognized that people are social beings and that
friendship plays an important role in eudaimonia, or human flourishing. True friends
trust each other and seek each other’s good. Reciprocity and an equality of interest are
fundamental elements of friendship. There was no reciprocity when Kate sneakily took
Jerry’s photo without his knowledge; she exploited him by taking something from him
without giving him anything in return. She did not act as a friend when she put her
132 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
own interest above that of Jerry. After the party, Kate had another opportunity to be
honest with Jerry. Unfortunately she did not trust Jerry enough to admit she had taken
the picture and ask his permission before posting the photo. Instead, she said nothing to
Jerry and simply posted the photo to her blog. Overall, Kate’s actions at several points in
the story do not seem to be characteristic of a good friend.
SUMMARY
The analyses from the perspectives of Kantianism, social contract theory, rule utilitari-
anism, and virtue ethics do not support Kate posting the photo without asking Jerry’s
permission, though each analysis uses a different line of reasoning to reach that conclu-
sion. Kate imagined (correctly, as it turns out) that Jerry would be angry if she took a
photo of him wearing the Tory Party T-shirt, and that is why she took the photo when
he wasn’t looking. Kate figured it would be better to beg for forgiveness than ask for per-
mission, but what she did was cut Jerry out of a decision that affected both of them. This
is no way to treat anybody, much less a friend. Kate would have been better off trying to
persuade Jerry that putting the photo on her blog would be to their mutual advantage,
posting the image only after obtaining his consent.
3.7 Children and Inappropriate Content
Many parents and guardians believe they ought to protect their children from exposure
to pornographic and violent materials. A few years ago the center of concern was the
Web, and a large software industry sprang up to provide browsers with the ability to
block inappropriate images. Now smartphones are becoming commonplace, and some
parents are being forced to confront the unpleasant reality that their children have
emailed sexually provocative images of themselves to friends or even strangers.
3.7.1 Web Filters
A Web filter is a piece of software that prevents certain Web pages from being displayed
by your browser. While you are running your browser, the filter runs as a background
process, checking every page your browser attempts to load. If the filter determines that
the page is objectionable, it prevents the browser from displaying it.
Filters can be installed on individual computers, or an ISP may provide filtering
services for its customers. Programs designed to be installed on individual computers,
such as CyberSentinel, eBlaster, and Spector Pro, can be set up to email parents as soon
as they detect an inappropriate Web page [58]. America Online’s filtering service is called
AOL Parental Controls. It enables parents to set the level of filtering on their children’s
accounts. It also allows parents to look at logs showing the pages their children have
visited.
Typical filters use two different methods to determine if a page should be blocked.
The first method is to check the URL of the page against a blacklist of objectionable sites.
If the Web page comes from a blacklisted site, it is not displayed. The second method is
to look for combinations of letters or words that may indicate a site has objectionable
content.
3.7 Children and Inappropriate Content 133
Neither of these methods is foolproof. The Web contains millions of pages contain-
ing pornography, and new sites continue to be created at a high rate, so any blacklist of
pornographic sites will be incomplete by definition. Some filters sponsored by conser-
vative groups have blacklisted sites associated with liberal political causes, such as those
sponsored by the National Organization for Women and gay and lesbian groups. The al-
gorithms used to identify objectionable words and phrases can cause Web filters to block
out legitimate Web pages.
CALVIN AND HOBBES © 1990 Watterson. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK.
Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
3.7.2 Child Internet Protection Act
In March 2003, the Supreme Court weighed testimony in the case of United States v.
American Library Association. The question: Can the government require libraries to
install antipornography filters in return for receiving federal funds for Internet access?
More than 14 million people access the Internet through public library computers.
About one-sixth of the libraries in the United States have already installed filtering soft-
ware on at least some of their computers. The Child Internet Protection Act requires that
libraries receiving federal funds to provide Internet access to its patrons must prevent
children from getting access to visual depictions of obscenity and child pornography.
The law allows adults who desire access to a blocked page to ask a librarian to remove
the filter.
In his testimony before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Theodore Olson ar-
gued that since libraries don’t offer patrons X-rated magazines or movies, they should
not be obliged to give them access to pornography over the Internet.
Paul Smith, representing the American Library Association and the American Civil
Liberties Union, argued that in their attempt to screen out pornography, filters block
tens of thousands of inoffensive pages. He added that requiring adults to leave the
workstation, find a librarian, and ask for the filter to be turned off would be disruptive
to their research and would stigmatize them.
In June 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld CIPA, ruling 6–3 that antipornography
filters do not violate First Amendment guarantees [59]. Chief Justice William Rehnquist
wrote, “A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public
forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order
to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak . . . Most libraries already
134 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for
inclusion” [60].
3.7.3 Ethical Evaluations of CIPA
In this section we evaluate CIPA from the perspectives of Kantianism, act utilitarianism,
and social contract theory.
KANTIAN EVALUATION
We have already covered Kant’s philosophical position against censorship. He optimisti-
cally believed that allowing people to use their own reason would lead to society’s grad-
ual enlightenment. In this case, however, the focus is narrower. Rather than talking about
censorship in general, let’s look at CIPA in particular.
The goal of CIPA is to protect children from the harm caused by exposure to
pornography. The way the goal is being implemented is through Web filters. Studies have
demonstrated that Web filters do not block all pornographic material but do block some
nonpornographic Web pages. Some nonpornographic information posted on the Web
is not easily accessible at libraries implementing government-mandated Web filters. The
people posting this information did not consent to their ideas being blocked. Hence the
decision to require the use of Web filters treats the creators of non-offensive but blocked
Web pages solely as means to the end of restricting children’s access to pornographic
materials. This analysis leads us to conclude that CIPA is wrong.
ACT UTILITARIAN EVALUATION
Our second evaluation of CIPA is from an act utilitarian point of view. What are the
consequences of passing CIPA?
1. While not all children access the Web in public libraries, and while Web filtering
software is imperfect, it is probable that enacting CIPA results in fewer children
being exposed to pornography, which is good.
2. Because Web filters are imperfect, people are unable to access some legitimate Web
sites. As a result, Web browsers in libraries are less useful as research tools, a harmful
consequence.
3. Adult patrons who ask for filters to be removed may be stigmatized (rightfully or
not) as people who want to view pornography, a harm to them.
4. Some blocked sites may be associated with minority political views, reducing free-
dom of thought and expression, which is harmful.
Whenever we perform the utilitarian calculus and find some benefits and some harms,
we must decide how to weigh them. This is a good time to think about utilitarian
philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s seven attributes. In particular, how many people are in
each affected group? What is the probability the good or bad event will actually happen?
How soon is the event likely to occur? How intense will the experience be? To what extent
is the pain not diluted by pleasure or vice versa? How long will it last? How likely is the
experience to lead to a similar experience? Actually performing the calculus for CIPA is
3.7 Children and Inappropriate Content 135
up to each person’s judgment. Different people could reach opposite conclusions about
whether enacting CIPA is the right thing for the US government to do.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY EVALUATION
In social contract theory, morally binding rules are those rules mutually agreed to in
order to allow social living [61]. Freedom of thought and expression is prized. According
to John Rawls, “liberty of conscience is to be limited only when there is a reasonable
expectation that not doing so will damage the public order which the government should
maintain” [62].
It would be difficult to gain consensus around the idea that the private viewing of
pornography makes social living no longer possible. For this reason, the private use of
pornography is considered to be outside the social contract and nobody else’s business.
However, when we think about the availability of pornography in public libraries, the
issue gets thornier.
Some argue that allowing people to view pornography in a public place demeans
women, denying them dignity as equal persons [63]. On the other hand, we know that
filtering software is imperfect. In the past it has been used to promote a conservative
political agenda by blocking sites associated with other viewpoints [64, 65]. Hence it
reduces the free exchange of ideas, limiting the freedoms of thought and expression.
For some adults, public libraries represent their only opportunity to access the Web
for no cost. In order to be treated as free and equal citizens, they should have the
same Web access as people who have Internet access from their homes. If Web filters
are in place, their access is not equal because they must ask for permission to have
the filters disabled. Finally, while most people would agree that children should not be
exposed to pornographic material, it would be harder to convince reasonable people that
social living would no longer be possible if children happened to see pornography in a
library.
Our analysis from the point of view of social contract theory has produced argu-
ments both supporting and opposing the Children’s Internet Protection Act. However,
installing filters does not seem to be necessary to preserve the public order. For this rea-
son, the issue is outside the social contract and freedom of conscience should be given
precedence.
3.7.4 Sexting
Sexting refers to sending sexually suggestive text messages or emails containing nude or
nearly nude photographs [66]. In a 2009 survey of 655 American teenagers conducted
by Cox Communications, 9 percent said they had sent a sext at least once, 17 percent
said they had received a sext at least once, and 3 percent said they had forwarded a sext
at least once. Of the teens who had sent sexts, 11 percent admitted to having sent a sext
to someone they didn’t know. Interestingly, when those who had sent sexts were asked if
a photo they had sent was ever forwarded to someone they didn’t want to see it, only 2
percent said yes, but when the same group of people was asked if their friends ever had
photos forwarded to people they didn’t want to see them, 30 percent answered yes [66].
136 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
Although sexting is a relatively recent phenomenon, there are already plenty of
stories in the mainstream media about the serious impact it is having on people’s lives.
Here are three recent stories.
Ohio high school student Jesse Logan sent nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend.
When they broke up, the ex-boyfriend distributed the photos to other girls in her high
school. Jesse endured months of harassment from her high school classmates and began
skipping classes on a daily basis. After attending the funeral of another classmate who
committed suicide, Jesse went home and hanged herself [67].
After Phillip Alpert got into an argument with his 16-year-old girlfriend, he emailed
a nude photo of her to dozens of her friends and family members. “It was a stupid thing
I did because I was upset and tired and it was the middle of the night and I was an
immature kid,” Alpert said upon reflection. The Orlando, Florida, police arrested Alpert,
who had just turned 18, charging him with sending child pornography, a felony. It didn’t
matter that Alpert’s girlfriend was 16, that they had dated for two and a half years, and
that she was the one who had originally sent the photo to him. Alpert was sentenced to
five years probation and required to register with the state of Florida as a sex offender.
He will remain a registered sex offender until he is 43 years old [68].
Ting-Yi Oei, a 59-year-old assistant principal at Freedom High School in South
Riding, Virgina, was asked to investigate rumors that students were distributing nude
photographs on their cell phones. His investigation led to a 16-year-old boy, who ad-
mitted to having a provocative photo on his cell phone. The photo showed the torso
of a 17-year-old girl wearing panties, with her arms mostly covering her breasts. Oei
showed the image to the principal, who told him to keep a copy on his computer as ev-
idence. Two weeks later the same boy got in trouble again, and Oei suspended him for
two weeks. When Oei met with the boy’s mother, he told her about the earlier photo
incident. The boy’s mother was upset that Oei hadn’t immediately told her about the
photo, and she demanded that Oei revoke her son’s suspension. When Oei refused, the
mother went to the police and told them about the photo. Sheriff ’s investigators came to
the school and found the photo of the girl on Oei’s computer. County prosecutor James
Plowman gave Oei an ultimatum: resign or face felony charges for possession of child
pornography. Plowman’s assistant told the press, “We just feel very strongly that this is
not someone who should be in the Loudoun County school system.” Oei refused to re-
sign, and in August 2008, a grand jury indicted him for possession of child pornography.
The school district removed him from his position as vice principal and reassigned him
to a job at a testing center. Oei had to take out a second mortgage on his house to pay
legal expenses. In April 2009, Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas Horne dismissed
the charges, noting that nudity alone is not sufficient to categorize an image of a minor
as child pornography. Though never convicted, Oei ended up deeply in debt and with a
tarnished reputation, unsure if he would ever return to his former position at the high
school [69].
There appears to be a widespread sentiment that child pornography laws should
not be used to prosecute teenagers who are caught sexting. In 2009 legislation was
introduced in a number of state legislatures that would make sexting among teenagers a
misdemeanor [70].
3.8 Breaking Trust 137
3.8 Breaking Trust
Identify thieves and sexual predators have used the Internet to find new victims.
3.8.1 Identity Theft
Dorothy Denning defines identity theft as “the misuse of another person’s identity, such
as name, Social Security number, driver’s license, credit card numbers, and bank account
numbers. The objective is to take actions permitted to the owner of the identity, such as
withdraw funds, transfer money, charge purchases, get access to information, or issue
documents and letters under the victim’s identity” [71].
The leading form of identity theft in the United States is credit card fraud. Identity
thieves either take out a new credit card in someone else’s name or commandeer an exist-
ing account [72]. By changing the billing address of existing accounts, a thief can run up
large debts before the victim becomes aware of the problem. These activities can blemish
the target’s credit history. As a result, victims of identity theft may have applications for
credit cards, mortgage loans, and even employment denied. If the impostor shows false
credentials to the police, the victim may even be saddled with a false criminal record or
outstanding arrest warrants.
Financial institutions contribute to the problem of identity theft by making it easy
for people to open up new accounts. Since information brokers on the Web are selling
driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, and credit card information, it’s
easy for an identity thief to gather a great deal of information about another person.
Assuming another person’s identity is made simpler by banks allowing people to open
accounts online [73].
The number of Americans victimized by identity theft decreased from about 11
million in 2009 to 8 million in 2010, but the average loss increased from $387 to $631
[74]. Fortunately, United States law says that a consumer’s liability for losses due to
credit card fraud are limited to $50 if reported promptly. Most victims end up paying
nothing out of pocket because their banks and credit card companies offer zero-liability
fraud protection. However, victims of identity theft typically spend more than 30 hours
resolving the problem [74].
Most cases of identity theft are not the result of someone using computers to break
into a database containing information about a target. Instead, identity thieves are much
more likely to use low-tech methods to gain access to the personal information they
need. A 2008 survey of identity theft victims revealed that in 43 percent of the cases, the
theft was the result of a lost or stolen wallet, credit card, checkbook, or another physical
document [75]. Some identity thieves engage in dumpster diving—looking for personal
information in garbage cans or recycling bins. Old bills, bank statements, and credit card
statements contain a wealth of personal information, including names, addresses, and
account numbers. Another simple way to get information is through shoulder surfing—
looking over the shoulders of people filling out forms.
In 19 percent of the cases surveyed in 2008, someone at a business obtained a credit
card number when the owner was making a purchase [75]. Waiters or store clerks match
138 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
each legal swipe through a cash register with an illegal swipe through a skimmer, a small,
battery-powered credit card reader. Identity theft rings use numbers collected this way
to manufacture counterfeit credit cards.
Surprisingly, 14 percent of the cases of identity theft identified in 2010 were
“friendly thefts” in which family members, friends, or in-house employees made pur-
chases without the account holder’s consent [74].
Still, a significant number of people are victims of identity theft through their online
activities. Gathering financial information via spam is called phishing (pronounced
“fishing”). Thieves send out spam messages designed to look like they originated from
PayPal, eBay, or another well-known Internet-active business. Through these messages
they hope to con unsuspecting recipients into connecting with authentic-looking Web
sites and revealing their credit card numbers or other personal information.
For example, a victim might receive an email message purportedly from PayPal,
asking the person to go to the PayPal Web site to confirm a transaction. The email
message contains a hypertext link. When the victim clicks on the link, he is connected
to the counterfeit PayPal site. Phishing, spyware, and other online methods resulted in
more than a million cases of identity theft in the United States in 2008 [75].
The stereotypical victim of identity theft is an elderly person who isn’t computer
savvy, but the facts speak otherwise. The average age of a victim of identity theft is 40.
Many victims are experienced computer users who have become comfortable typing in
their credit card information while online [76].
The Identity Theft and Assumption Act of 1998 makes identity theft a federal crime.
In 2004 Congress passed the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, which length-
ened prison sentences for identity thieves [77]. A variety of law enforcement agencies
investigate alleged violations of this law: the US Secret Service, the FBI, the US Postal
Inspection Service, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Ad-
ministration [78]. Unfortunately, the probability that a particular case of identity theft
will result in an arrest is about 1 in 700 [79].
3.8.2 Chat-Room Predators
Instant messaging is a real-time communication between two or more people supported
by computers and a telecommunications system. A chat room is similar to instant mes-
saging, except that it supports discussions among many people. A large number of orga-
nizations sponsor chat rooms dedicated to a wide variety of topics. For example, in July
2009, America Online’s “Chats” page listed hundreds of chat rooms divided into 30 gen-
eral categories, including Arts and Entertainment, Black Voices, Friends & Flirts, GLBT,
Latino, Life, Places, Politics, Romance, and Town Square.
The popularity of instant messaging varies from country to country. According to
Nielsen/NetRatings, the number of people who used instant messaging between January
and March of 2002 varied from 13 percent of all Internet users in Denmark to 43 percent
in Spain [80]. Participation in chat rooms also varies from country to country. According
to the same survey, the number of people with Internet accounts who participated
3.8 Breaking Trust 139
in a chat room between January and March of 2002 varied from 16 percent in the
United Kingdom to 41 percent in Brazil. Conservatively estimating average use of instant
messaging or chat rooms at 25 percent, the number of people worldwide who use this
technology at least occasionally is about 150 million.
In 1995 Katie Tarbox, a 13-year-old swimmer from New Canaan, Connecticut, met
a man in an AOL chat room [81]. He said his name was Mark and his age was 23. His
grammar and vocabulary were good, and he made her feel special. Katie agreed to meet
Mark at a hotel in Texas, where her swim team was competing. Soon after she entered
his hotel room, he molested her. “Mark” turned out to be 41-year-old Francis Kufrovich
from Calabasas, California, a man with a history of preying on children. In March
1998, Kufrovich was the first person in the United States to be sentenced for Internet
pedophilia. After pleading guilty, he served 18 months in prison.
In 1999 the FBI investigated 1,500 crimes in which an alleged pedophile crossed a
state line to meet and molest a child met through an Internet chat room [81]. Many say
the problem is growing. Parry Aftab, executive director of Cyber Angels, says, “I know
that I can go into a chat room as a 12-year-old and not say anything, and be hit on and
asked if I’m a virgin within two minutes” [81].
Police have begun entering chat rooms posing as young girls to lure pedophiles [82].
During a three-week-long sting operation in Spokane, Washington, a police detective
posed as a 13-year-old girl in a chat room. In early March 2003, police arrested a 22-
year-old man on charges of attempted second-degree rape of a child. Inside his car the
officers found handcuffs, a large folding knife, and a condom. The suspect was still on
parole for an earlier conviction for fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation. Police
sergeant Joe Petersen asked, “What happens had it been a real girl?” [83]. Chat-room
sting operations are leading to many arrests all over the United States [84, 85, 86, 87,
88, 89].
3.8.3 Ethical Evaluations of Police Sting Operations
Is it morally right for police detectives to entrap pedophiles by posing as children in chat
rooms and agreeing to meet with them?
UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
Let’s consider the various consequences of such a sting operation. A person allegedly
interested in having sex with an underage minor is arrested and charged with attempted
child rape. Suppose the person is found guilty and must serve time in prison. The direct
effects of the sting operation are the denial of one person’s freedom (a harm) and an
increase in public safety (a benefit). Since the entire public is safer and only a single
person is harmed, this is a net good.
The sting operation also has indirect effects. Publicity about the sting operation may
deter other chat-room pedophiles. This, too, is a beneficial result. It is harder to gauge
how knowledge of sting operations influences innocent citizens. First, it may reduce cit-
izens’ trust in the police. Many people believe that if they are doing nothing wrong, they
have nothing to fear. Others may become less inclined to provide information to the
140 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
police when requested. Second, sting operations can affect everyone’s chat-room expe-
riences. They demonstrate that people are not always who they claim to be. This knowl-
edge may make people less vulnerable to being taken advantage of, but it may also reduce
the amount of trust people have in others. Sting operations prove that supposedly pri-
vate chat-room conversations can actually be made public. If chat-room conversations
lack honesty and privacy, people will be less willing to engage in serious conversations.
As a result, chat rooms lose some of their utility as communication devices. How much
weight you give to the various consequences of police sting operations in chat rooms
determines whether the net consequences are positive or negative.
KANTIAN ANALYSIS
A Kantian focuses on the will leading to the action rather than the results of the action.
The police are responsible for maintaining public safety. Pedophiles endanger innocent
children. Therefore, it is the duty of police to try to prevent pedophiles from accom-
plishing what they intend to do. The will of the police detective is to put a pedophile in
prison. This seems straightforward enough.
If we dig a level deeper, however, we run into trouble. In order to put a pedophile
in prison, the police must identify this person. Since a pedophile is unlikely to confess
on the spot if asked a question by a police officer, the police lay a trap. In other words,
the will of the police detective is to deceive a pedophile in order to catch him. To a
Kantian, lying is wrong, no matter how noble the objective. By collecting evidence of
chat-room conversations, the police detective also violates the presumed privacy of chat
rooms. These actions of the police detective affect not only the alleged pedophile but also
every innocent person in the chat room. In other words, detectives are using every chat-
room occupant as a means to their end of identifying and arresting the pedophile. While
police officers have a duty to protect the public safety, it is wrong for them to break other
moral laws in order to accomplish this purpose. From a Kantian point of view, the sting
operation is morally wrong.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY ANALYSIS
An adherent of social contract theory could argue that in order to benefit everyone, there
are certain moral rules that people in chat rooms ought to follow. For example, people
ought to be honest, and conversations ought to be kept confidential. By misrepresenting
identity and/or intentions, the pedophile has broken a moral rule and ought to be
punished. In conducting sting operations, however, police detectives also misrepresent
their identities and record everything typed by suspected pedophiles. The upholders of
the law have broken the rules, too. Furthermore, we have the presumption of innocence
until proof of guilt. What if the police detective, through miscommunication or bad
judgment, actually entraps someone who is not a pedophile? In this case, the innocent
chat-room users have not broken any rules. They were simply in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Yet society, represented by the police detective, did not provide the benefits
chat-room users expect to receive (honest communications and privacy). In short, there
is a conflict between society’s need to punish a wrongdoer and its expectation that
everyone (including the agents of the government) abide by its moral rules.
3.8 Breaking Trust 141
SUMMARY OF ETHICAL ANALYSES
To summarize our ethical evaluation of police sting operations, the actions of the police
seem immoral from a Kantian point of view. Evaluations using the other ethical theories
do not yield a clear-cut endorsement or condemnation of the stings. While the goals of
the police are laudable, they accomplish their goals by deceiving other chat-room users
and revealing details of conversations thought to be private. Sting operations are more
likely to be viewed as morally acceptable by someone who is more focused on the results
of an action than the methods used; in other words, a consequentialist.
3.8.4 False Information
The Web is a more open communication medium than newspapers, radio stations, or
television stations. Individuals or groups whose points of view may never be published in
a newspaper or broadcast on a television or radio show may create an attractive Web site.
The ease with which people may get information out via the Web is one of the reasons
the Web contains billions of pages. However, the fact that no one has to review a Web
page before it is published means the quality of information available on the Web varies
widely.
You can find many Web sites devoted to the American manned space program. You
can also find many Web sites that provide evidence the moon landings were a hoax
by NASA. Many Web sites describe the Holocaust committed by the Nazis before and
during World War II. Other sites explain why the Holocaust could not have happened.
Disputes about commonly held assumptions did not begin with the Web. Some
television networks and newspapers are well known for giving a forum to people who
question information provided through government agencies. Twice in 2001, the Fox
TV network aired a program called “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”
The program concludes NASA faked the Moon landing in the Nevada desert. Super-
market tabloids are notorious for their provocative, misleading headlines. Experienced
consumers take into account the source of the information. Most people would agree
that 60 Minutes on CBS is a more reliable source of information than Conspiracy Theory
on Fox. Similarly, people expect information they find in the New York Times to be more
reliable than the stories they read in a tabloid.
In traditional publishing, various mechanisms are put in place to improve the qual-
ity of the final product. For example, before Addison-Wesley published the first edition
of this book, an editor sent draft copies of the manuscript to a dozen reviewers who
checked it for errors, omissions, or misleading statements. The author revised the man-
uscript to respond to the reviewers’ suggestions. After the author submitted a revised
manuscript, a copy editor made final changes to improve the readability of the text, and
a proofreader corrected typographical errors.
Web pages, on the other hand, can be published without any review. As you’re un-
doubtedly well aware, the quality of Web pages varies dramatically. Fortunately, search
engines can help people identify those Web pages that are most relevant and of the high-
est quality. Let’s take a look at how the Google search engine does this.
142 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
The Google search engine keeps a database of many billions of Web pages. A soft-
ware algorithm ranks the quality of these pages. The algorithm invokes a kind of voting
mechanism. If Web page A links to Web page B, then page B gets a vote. However, all
votes do not have the same weight. If Web page A is itself getting a lot of votes, then page
A’s link to page B gives its vote more weight than a link to B from an unpopular page.
When a user makes a query to Google, the search engine first finds the pages that
closely match the query. It then considers their quality (as measured by the voting
algorithm) to determine how to rank the relevant pages.
3.8.5 Cyberbullying
In November 2002, Ghyslain Raza, a chubby high school student living in Quebec,
Canada, borrowed a videotape and used one of the high school’s video cameras to film
himself swinging a golf ball retriever like a light saber, à la Darth Maul in Star Wars
Episode I . A few months later, the owner of the videotape discovered the content and
shared it with some friends. After one of them digitized the scene and made it available
on the Internet, millions of people downloaded the file in the first two weeks [90].
Ghyslain was nicknamed “the Star Wars kid,” endured prolonged harassment from other
students, and eventually dropped out of school [91]. By 2006 the video had been viewed
more than 900 million times [92].
Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet or the phone system to inflict psychological
harm on another person. Frequently, a group of persons gangs up to cyberbully the
victim. Examples of cyberbullying include
. Repeatedly texting or emailing hurtful messages to another person
. Spreading lies about another person
. Tricking someone into revealing highly personal information
. “Outing” or revealing someone’s secrets online
. Posting embarrassing photographs or videos of other people without their consent
. Impersonating someone else online in order to damage that person’s reputation
. Threatening or creating significant fear in another person
Surveys have revealed that cyberbullying is common among teenagers. Cox Com-
munications surveyed 655 American teenagers in 2009, and 19 percent reported that
they had been cyberbullied online, via cell phone, or through both media. Ten percent
of the teenagers admitted to cyberbullying someone else. When asked why they had cy-
berbullied someone else, the most common responses were “they deserved it” and “to
get back at someone” [66].
In some instances cyberbullying has led to the suicide of the victim, as in the case
of 13-year-old Megan Meier. According to her mother, “Megan had a lifelong struggle
with weight and self-esteem” [93]. She had talked about suicide in third grade, and ever
since then she had been seeing a therapist [93]. Megan’s spirits soared when she met a
16-year-old boy named Josh Evans on MySpace. They flirted online for four weeks but
never met in person. Then Josh seemed to sour on their relationship. One day he let her
3.9 Internet Addiction 143
know that he didn’t know if he wanted to be friends with her anymore. The next day he
posted [93, 94]:
You are a bad person and everybody hates you.
Have a shitty rest of your life.
The world would be a better place without you.
When Megan angrily responded to this post, others ganged up on her: “Megan
Meier is a slut”; “Megan Meier is fat” [93]. Later that afternoon, Megan hanged herself
in her bedroom.
Eventually the community learned that “Josh Evans” did not exist. The MySpace
account had been created just a couple of houses away from the Meier home by 18-year-
old Ashley Grills, 13-year-old Sarah Drew, and Lori Drew, Sarah’s mother. Sarah had a
falling out with Megan, and Ashley suggested creating the MySpace account to find out
what Megan might be saying about Sarah. Lori Drew had approved the plan. Most of
the messages from “Josh” had been written by Sarah or Ashley, but Lori Drew had been
aware of what they were doing [95].
The county’s district attorney declined to prosecute Lori Drew because there was no
Missouri law against cyberbullying [96]. The FBI investigated the case, however, and in
2008 federal prosecutors charged Drew with four felony counts under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act for violating the MySpace terms of service. A jury found her
not guilty of these crimes but did convict her of three misdemeanors [97]. In 2009 a
US district judge overturned these convictions, stating that criminal charges should not
have been brought against Drew for breaking a contract with an Internet service provider
[98].
In April 2009, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act was introduced in the
US House of Representatives. The purpose of the proposed law was to “impose criminal
penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign commerce a communication
intended to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another
person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” [99].
Some civil libertarians objected to the proposed legislation, arguing that it would take
away free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The law did not win approval by the House of Representatives.
3.9 Internet Addiction
Some people spend a great deal of time online, but psychologists disagree whether it is
possible to become addicted to the Internet.
3.9.1 Is Internet Addiction Real?
Using an Internet-enabled computer can be a lot of fun—the number of different things
you can do online is staggering. You probably know someone who spends a lot of time—
maybe too much time—playing online computer games. Is there such a thing as an
addiction to the Internet or online games? The late psychologist Maressa Orzack thought
144 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
so. She stated, “Internet addicts can lose their jobs as they become unable to limit their
time spent online, either because they fail to turn up for work or because they misuse
their office computer facilities” [100].
The traditional definition of addiction is the persistent, compulsive use of a chemi-
cal substance, or drug, despite knowledge of its harmful long-term consequences [101].
However, Orzack and some other psychologists and psychiatrists extended the definition
of addiction to include any persistent, compulsive behavior that the addict recognizes to
be harmful. According to their broader definition of addiction, people can be addicted
to gambling, food, sex, long-distance running, and other activities, including computer-
related activities [102].
Some people spend between 40 and 80 hours per week on the Internet, with indi-
vidual sessions lasting up to 20 hours [103, 104]. Spending so much time online can
have a wide variety of harmful consequences. Fatigue from sleep deprivation can lead to
unsatisfactory performance at school or at work. Physical ailments include carpal tun-
nel syndrome, back strain, and eyestrain. Too many hours in front of a computer can
weaken or destroy relationships with friends and family members [103]. In a few cases,
people have died after prolonged sessions sitting in front of a computer (Figure 3.5).
Kimberly Young created a test for Internet addiction. Using the diagnosis of patho-
logical gambling in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as her
starting point, Young produced an eight-question screening instrument that probes how
Internet usage is affecting the patient’s life, including how preoccupied the patient is with
the Internet, whether the patient has been repeatedly unsuccessful in reducing Internet
usage, and how the patient feels when trying to spend less time online. According to
Young, patients who answer yes to five or more of these questions appear to be addicted
to the Internet, unless “their behavior could not be better accounted for by a Manic
Episode” [103].
Young’s use of the phrase “Internet addiction” and her questionnaire are controver-
sial. John Charlton points out that computer use, unlike drug use, is generally considered
to be a positive activity. In addition, while drug addiction leads to an increase in crim-
inal activity, the same level of societal harm is unlikely to occur even if the Internet is
overused by some people. Charlton performed his own study of computer users and
has concluded that Young’s checklist approach is likely to overestimate the number of
people addicted to the Internet. According to Charlton, some “people who are classified
as computer-dependent or computer-addicted might often be more accurately said to
be highly computer-engaged” [105].
Mark Griffiths holds a position similar to Charlton, stating that “to date there
is very little empirical evidence that computing activities (i.e., Internet use, hacking,
programming) are addictive” [104, p. 211]. Richard Ries argues that it would be more
accurate to call excessive use of the Internet a compulsion [106].
However, others share Young’s perspective. Stanton Peele maintains that “people
become addicted to experiences” [102, p. 97]. In his broader view of addiction, non-
drug experiences can be addictive. Peele has developed a model of addiction that extends
to repetitive, compulsive behaviors.
Our concern in this section is excessive Internet use that causes harm. The dispute
over terminology is not important to our discussion. We will use the term “Internet
3.9 Internet Addiction 145
Figure 3.5 Many South Koreans play persistent online games in centers called PC bangs. In
2005 a 28-year-old South Korean man died after playing one game practically nonstop for
50 hours. (Kim-Jae Hwan)
addiction” rather than “Internet compulsion,” since the former term appears to be more
widely used by the press.
3.9.2 Contributing Factors
According to Peele, social, situational, and individual factors can increase a person’s sus-
ceptibility to addiction. For example, peer groups play an important role in determining
how individuals use alcohol and other drugs. People in stressful situations are more
likely to become addicted, as are those who lack social support and intimacy, and those
who have limited opportunities for “rewarding, productive activity” [102]. Individual
146 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
factors that make a person more susceptible to addiction include a tendency to pursue
an activity to excess, a lack of achievement, a fear of failure, and feelings of alienation.
Young’s studies have led her to “believe that behaviors related to the Internet have
the same ability to provide emotional relief, mental escape, and ways to avoid problems
as do alcohol, drugs, food, or gambling” [103]. She notes that the typical Internet addict
is addicted to a single application.
3.9.3 Ethical Evaluation of Internet Addiction
People who use the Internet excessively can harm themselves and others for whom they
are responsible. For this reason, excessive Internet use is a moral issue.
Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory all share the Enlightenment
view that individuals, as rational beings, have the capacity and the obligation to use their
critical judgment to govern their lives [107]. Kant held that addiction is a vice, because
it’s wrong to allow your bodily desires to dominate your mind [108]. Mill maintained
that some pleasures are more valuable than others and that people have the obligation
to help each other distinguish better pleasures from worse ones [51].
Ultimately, people are responsible for the choices they make. Even if an addict is
“hooked,” the addict is responsible for choosing to engage in the activity the first time.
This view assumes that people are capable of controlling their compulsions. According
to Jeffrey Reiman, vices are “dispositions that undermine the sovereignty of practical
reason. Dispositions, like habits, are hard but not impossible to overcome, and under-
mining something weakens it without necessarily destroying it entirely” [107, p. 89].
Reiman’s view is supported by Peele, who believes addicts can choose to recover
from their addictions. “People recover to the extent that they (1) believe an addiction
is hurting them and wish to overcome it, (2) feel enough efficacy to manage their
withdrawal and life without the addiction, and (3) find sufficient alternative rewards
to make life without the addiction worthwhile” [102, p. 156].
While our analysis to this point has concluded that individual addicts are morally
responsible for their addictions, it’s also possible for a society to bear collective moral
responsibility for the addictions of some of its members. We have already discussed how
social conditions can increase a person’s susceptibility to addiction, and Peele states an
addict will not recover unless life without the addiction has sufficient rewards.
Addiction is wrong because it means voluntarily surrendering the sovereignty of
your reason by engaging in a compulsion that has short-term benefits but harms the
quality of your life in the long term. However, if somebody is living in a hopeless
situation where any reasonable person would conclude there are no long-term prospects
for a good life, then what is lost by giving in to the compulsion? Reiman believes that this
is the case for many American inner-city drug addicts. “They face awful circumstances
that are unjust, unnecessary, and remediable, and yet that the society refuses to remedy.
Addiction is for such individuals a bad course of action made tolerable by comparison
to the intolerable conditions they face. In that face, I think that moral responsibility for
their strong addictions . . . passes to the larger society” [107, p. 91].
Summary 147
Of course, the circumstances facing a typical suburban Internet addict are radically
different from those facing a typical inner-city drug addict. For this reason, it is tempting
to dismiss the notion that society could in any way be responsible for the Internet
addiction of some of its members. However, some people use the Internet as a way to
escape into their own world, because in the “real world” they suffer from social isolation
[104]. Perhaps we should reflect on whether any of our actions or inactions make certain
members of our community feel excluded.
Summary
The Internet and cellular networks are powerful and flexible tools that support a wide
variety of social interactions. In this chapter we have explored text messaging, email,
chat rooms, and the Web. All of these technologies have had both positive and negative
impacts on society.
Twenty years ago, relatively few people had email accounts. Back then, email ad-
vertising was virtually unheard of. Email users did not have to delete large numbers of
unwanted messages from their mailboxes. On the other hand, email was not too useful
outside work, because most people didn’t have it.
Today, well over a billion people have an email account. Most anyone you’d like
to communicate with has an email address. However, the large number of email users
has attracted the attention of direct marketing firms. In the past few years the volume of
unsolicited bulk email (spam) has risen dramatically. Many believe the presence of spam
has harmed the email system, and a variety of steps have been taken to filter out spam
messages before they reach users.
The Web contains over one trillion pages. It contains images of sublime beauty
and shocking cruelty, uplifting poetry and expletive-ridden hate speech, well-organized
encyclopedias and figments of paranoid imaginations. In short, it is a reflection of the
best and the worst of humanity. Web-based social networking sites such as Facebook and
Twitter have attracted hundreds of millions of users and created new communication
paradigms. Some point to the use of Facebook and Twitter by participants in the Arab
Spring uprising as evidence that these tools can be powerful agents for social change,
while others think the impact of these tools has been overblown.
Governments have responded to the idea-sharing potential of the Web and social
networking sites in a variety of ways. The most repressive governments have simply made
the Internet inaccessible to their people. Other governments have instituted controls that
prevent certain sites from being accessed. Most governments allow their citizens nearly
universal access to Web sites and Web-based applications.
In the United States, there have been numerous efforts to make pornography in-
accessible to children via the Web. The US Congress passed three laws attempting to
make pornography less accessible to children via the Web. All of these laws raised objec-
tions from civil libertarians, who called them an infringement on free speech rights. The
US Supreme Court ruled the first two laws unconstitutional; it upheld the third.
148 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
Given the amount of legislation that has been passed to protect children from
pornography, it is ironic that many teenagers have become a source of suggestive images.
The legal system has not yet caught up with sexting: the use of email or cell phones to
send messages containing photos of nude or partially nude people. Child pornography
laws were written with pedophiles in mind. What is the proper response to minors who
are sexting photos of themselves?
The Internet provides new ways for people to be misled. Every year, millions of
people are conned into revealing their credit card numbers to scam artists who use this
information to get cash advances or purchase goods using someone else’s identity. Sexual
predators have used chat rooms as a tool to contact children. In response, police have
begun to set up sting operations to snare these predators.
The Web provides a remarkably simple way for people to post and access informa-
tion. People looking for answers can often get more information, and get it much more
quickly, by retrieving what they want from the Web instead of searching printed ency-
clopedias, books, journals, and newspapers. Ordinary people can also use the Web to
broadcast their ideas around the globe. There are many advantages to this information-
rich environment. Unfortunately, because anybody can post information on the Web,
incorrect information is mixed in with correct information. Web users cannot believe
everything they read on the Web. Web search engines incorporate algorithms that at-
tempt to steer people toward higher-quality sites.
The Internet and the telephone system have provided a new way for people to in-
timidate or humiliate others. After Megan Meier was cyberbullied, she took her own life.
The adult involved in the cyberbullying was not prosecuted by local authorities because
there were no state laws against cyberbullying. Efforts to create a national cyberbullying
law in the United States drew objections from civil libertarians, who feared that it would
greatly restrict freedom of expression, and the law was not passed.
A wide variety of enticing activities are available online, and some people exhibit
a compulsion to spend extraordinarily long hours connected to the Internet. Numer-
ous commentators have compared compulsive computer users to compulsive gamblers.
Whether or not a compulsive online activity is a true addiction, excessive computer
use can have harmful consequences. According to Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social
contract theory, people must take responsibility for the voluntary choices they make, in-
cluding the decision to go online. However, we should also remember that social and
cultural factors can make people more susceptible to addictions.
Review Questions
1. What is spam?
2. What does a spam filter do?
3. What is a URL?
4. What is a wiki?
5. What is a blog?
Discussion Questions 149
6. What is a PC bang?
7. Describe five uses of the Web not covered in the text.
8. Define censorship in your own words.
9. Summarize the different forms of direct censorship.
10. According to the US Supreme Court, why do broadcasters have the most limited First
Amendment rights?
11. What characteristics of the Internet make censorship difficult?
12. What is a Web filter?
13. What is sexting?
14. What is the leading form of identity theft in the United States?
15. What is phishing?
16. Define cyberbullying in your own words.
17. How does the idea of “Internet addiction” stretch the traditional concept of addiction?
18. What is the Enlightenment view regarding responsibility for addiction?
Discussion Questions
19. Why is texting more popular among young adults than making phone calls?
20. Why is “cold calling” considered to be an acceptable sales practice, but spamming isn’t?
21. Internet service providers monitor their chat rooms and expel users who violate their
codes of conduct. For example, users can be kicked off for insulting a person or a group
of people based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Is it wrong for an ISP to
expel someone for hate speech?
22. Stockbrokers are now required to save all their instant messaging communications. Is
having a record of everything you type good or bad? Do you think this requirement will
change the behavior of brokers?
23. There is a thriving “real-world” market for gold, artifacts, and avatars from virtual
worlds such as World of Warcraft. In effect, rich Westerners are offshoring game playing
to China. Do you find this image disturbing?
24. What are the benefits and harms of Internet censorship?
25. Should the tax dollars of citizens of democratic nations be used to help people in au-
thoritarian nations get around the Web censorship of their repressive governments?
26. Should people publishing accusations against others on their blogs or MySpace pages be
held responsible if they disseminate false information?
27. Should a college or university have the right to suspend its students who brag about
breaking its rules on their Facebook or MySpace pages?
28. In September 2012, Joseph Aziz, a graduate student at Montclair State University in New
Jersey, posted a YouTube video in which he said that a fellow student’s legs look like
“a pair of bleached hams.” The university disciplined Aziz for violating the university’s
code of conduct, ordered him to avoid all contact with the other student, and forbade
150 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
him from posting anything else about the other student on social media. After being
disciplined, Aziz complained about the gag order in a private group on Facebook and
made a joke about escaping the other student’s “tyrannical ham lock.” A member of the
Facebook group copied Aziz’s comments to university administrators, who then gave
Aziz a one-semester suspension that appears on his official college transcript [109]. Was
the response of Montclair State University appropriate?
29. Discuss similarities and differences between the Web and each of these other ways
that we communicate: the telephone system, physical mail, bookstores, movie theaters,
newspapers, broadcast and cable TV. Should governments ignore the Web, or should
they regulate it somehow? If governments should regulate the Web, should the reg-
ulations be similar to the regulations for one of the aforementioned communication
systems, or should they be unique in significant ways?
30. The convenience of Wikipedia makes it a popular reference for students. After several in-
stances in which students cited incorrect information, however, the history department
at Middlebury College prohibited references to Wikipedia articles in papers or exams.
Did the Middlebury history department go too far? What is the proper role, if any, for
Wikipedia in academic research?
31. Should bloggers be given the same rights as newspaper, magazine, or television journal-
ists?
32. Should children be prevented from accessing some Web sites? Who should be responsi-
ble for the actions of children surfing the Web?
33. You are in charge of the computers at a large inner-city library. Most of the people who
live in the neighborhood do not have a computer at home. They go to the library when
they want to access the Internet. About two-thirds of the people surfing the Web on the
library’s computers are adults.
You have been requested to install filtering software that would block Web sites con-
taining various kinds of material deemed inappropriate for children. You have observed
this software in action and know that it also blocks many sites that adults might legiti-
mately want to visit. How should you respond to the request to install filtering software?
34. Are there any circumstances under which sexting is morally acceptable?
35. What is the age at which a parent or guardian should provide a child with a cell phone?
Should younger children be provided with cell phones having fewer features?
36. Discuss the morality of Google’s page-ranking algorithm. Does it systematically exclude
Web pages containing opinions held only by a small segment of the population? Should
every opinion on the Web be given equal consideration?
37. What is the longest amount of time you have ever spent in a single session in front of a
computer? What were you doing?
38. The income of companies providing persistent online games depends on the number of
subscribers they attract. Since consumers have a choice of many products, each com-
pany is motivated to create the best possible experience for its customers. Role-playing
adventures have no set length. When playing one of these games, it’s easy to spend more
time on the computer than originally planned. Some subscribers cause harm to them-
selves and others by spending too much time playing these games. Should the designers
of persistent online games bear some moral responsibility for this problem?
In-Class Exercises 151
39. A school district forbids students from using their cell phones on school buses, but many
students ignore this rule. A frustrated bus driver installs a cell phone jammer on his bus.
When the jammer is turned on, cell phones within 40 feet stop working. (The use of
jammers is against the law.) The bus driver says, “The kids think they are sneaky by
hiding low in their seats and using their phones. Now the kids can’t figure out why their
phones don’t work, but can’t ask because they will get in trouble! It’s fun to watch them
try to get a signal” [110].
Discuss the morality of the bus driver’s use of the jammer.
40. According to some commentators, Facebook and Twitter played a vital role in the Arab
Spring uprising because they made it possible for activists to organize large protests in a
short amount of time. Others argue that Facebook and Twitter were simply tools used by
activists and that genuine social grievances led to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
What is your view?
41. After popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, the United States government said
it would spend $30 million to fund the development of new services and technologies
designed to allow activists in other countries to get around Internet restrictions imposed
by their governments.
Announcing this initiative, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We are con-
vinced that an open Internet fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity. The re-
verse is also true. An Internet that is closed and fractured, where different governments
can block activity or change the rules on a whim—where speech is censored or pun-
ished, and privacy does not exist—that is an Internet that can cut off opportunities for
peace and progress and discourage innovation and entrepreneurship” [111].
Should the US government provide activists in other countries the tools to get
around Internet restrictions imposed by authoritarian governments?
42. In July 2011, activists shut down a San Francisco subway station as a way of protesting
the death of a drunk man shot by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer [112].
A month later, the subway system blocked cell phone service at several stations in an
effort to prevent another protest. According to BART officials, protesters had said they
“would use mobile devices to coordinate their disruptive activities and communicate
about the location and number of BART Police” [113]. The agency said, “A civil dis-
turbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead
to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and
demonstrators” [113].
Was BART justified in blocking cell phone service?
In-Class Exercises
43. Divide the class into groups. Each group should come up with a variant of the case study
“Ann the Acme Accountant,” in which both a Kantian evaluation and an act utilitarian
evaluation would conclude Ann did something wrong.
44. Divide the class into groups. Each group should come up with a variant of the case study
“Kate’s Blog,” in which the analysis from the perspective of social contract theory would
152 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
conclude Kate did nothing wrong, but an act utilitarian evaluation would conclude Kate
did something wrong.
45. Divide the class into teams representing each of the following groups:
Small, struggling business
Large, established corporation
Internet service provider
Consumer
Discuss the value of direct email versus other forms of advertising, such as direct mail,
television advertising, radio advertising, the Yellow Pages, and setting up a Web site.
46. A company uses pop-up advertising to market its software product, which blocks pop-
ups from appearing when someone is surfing the Web. Debate the morality of the
company’s marketing strategy.
47. Ad-blocking software attachments to Web browsers enable a Web surfer to visit Web
sites without having to view the pop-up advertisements associated with these Web pages.
Debate this proposition: “People who use ad-blocking software are violating an implicit
‘social contract’ with companies that use advertising revenues as a means of providing
free access to Web pages.”
48. In 2000 the Estonian parliament passed a law declaring Internet access to be a funda-
mental human right of its citizens. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to
debate the following proposition: Internet access should be a fundamental human right,
along with such other fundamental human rights as the right to life and the right to free
speech.
49. How do you determine the credibility of information you get from the Web? Does the
source of the information make any difference to you? If so, how would you rank the
reliability of each of the following sources of Web pages? Does the type of information
you’re seeking affect your ranking?
Establishment newspaper
Counterculture newspaper
Television network
Corporation
Nonprofit organization
Individual
50. Martin Dula has suggested that parents should not provide their children with phones
capable of taking photos and videos because these phones tempt children to participate
in sexting [68].
Debate the following proposition: Parents and legal guardians should not allow
their children under the age of 18 to own cell phones capable of taking, transmitting,
or receiving photographs or videos.
Further Reading and Viewing
Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff. “The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet.” Wired,
September 2010. www.wired.com.
www.wired.com
References 153
Anand Giridharadas. “Where a Cellphone Is Still Cutting Edge.” New York Times, April 9,
2010. www.nytimes.com.
Malcolm Gladwell. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” New Yorker,
October 4, 2010.
Judith Horstman. “Internet Addiction: A Clinical Disorder?” ForaTv, November 9, 2009.
3:04. www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvkkwySZ20.
Steven Levy. “How Early Twitter Decisions Led to Anthony Weiner’s Dickish Demise.” Wired
Epicenter, June 13, 2011. www.wired.com/epicenter/.
Steven Levy. “Mob Rule! How Users Took Over Twitter.” Wired, November 2009. www.wired
.com.
Brian Proffitt. “What’s Holding Up the Internet of Things.” ReadWrite, June 14, 2013.
readwrite.com.
Mike Rugnetta. “Are Virtual Video Game Economies Becoming Real?” Idea Channel, Septem-
ber 19, 2012. 5:26. video.pbs.org.
Allen Salkin. “Party On, But No Tweets.” New York Times, August 9, 2009. www.nytimes.com.
Jeanette Thomas. “M-PESA Mobile Money.” Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, 2009.
3:30. http://blip.tv/play/AYHxux0C.html.
Bill Wasik. “Welcome to the Programmable World.” Wired, June 2013.
Gary Wolf. “The Tragedy of Craigslist.” Wired, September 2009. www.wired.com.
Judy Woodruff. “Google’s Schmidt and Cohen Discuss the Digital Future.” PBS NewsHour,
May 2, 2013. 9:38. video.pbs.org.
References
[1] Alex Williams. “Mind Your BlackBerry or Mind Your Manners,” New York Times, June
22, 2009. www.nytimes.com.
[2] Neda Ulaby. “The Posies: How Do Bands Make Money Now?” All Things Considered,
National Public Radio, July 29, 2009. www.npr.org.
[3] Rebecca Shapiro. “Most Americans Get News from TV: Gallup.” Huffington Post , July
8, 2013. www.huffingtonpost.com.
[4] Jose Antonio Vargas. “Obama Raised Half a Billion Online.” WashingtonPost.com,
November 20, 2008.
[5] “Paul Sets One-Day GOP Fundraising Record.” MSNBC, November 6, 2007. www
.msnbc.msn.com.
[6] “The Radicati Group, Inc. Releases Q2 2008 Market Numbers Update.” Radicati
Group, June 18, 2009. www.radicati.com.
[7] Brad Templeton. “Origin of the Term ‘Spam’ to Mean Net Abuse,” Templetons.com,
July 8, 2005. www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html.
[8] Peter H. Lewis. “An Ad (Gasp!) in Cyberspace.” New York Times, April 19, 1994.
[9] “Filters Getting Better at Blocking Spam.” Boston Globe, May 12, 2009.
[10] Saul Hansell. “Internet Is Losing Ground in Battle against Spam.” New York Times,
April 22, 2003.
[11] Joe Stewart. “Top Spam Botnets Exposed.” Dell SecureWorks, April 8, 2008. www
.secureworks.com/research/threats/topbotnets.
www.nytimes.com
www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvkkwySZ20
www.wired.com/epicenter/
www.wired.com
www.wired.com
www.nytimes.com
www.wired.com
www.nytimes.com
www.npr.org
www.huf.ngtonpost.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.radicati.com
www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html
www.secureworks.com/research/threats/topbotnets
www.secureworks.com/research/threats/topbotnets
http://blip.tv/play/AYHxux0C.html
154 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
[12] Brian Whitworth and Elizabeth Whitworth. “Spam and the Social-Technical Gap.”
Computer 37(10):38–45, October 2004.
[13] Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, 1999.
[14] Gianni Catlfamo. “The Death of the Browser.” KetchumBlog , February 19, 2011. block
.ketchum.com.
[15] Erick Schonfeld. “Forrester Forecast: Online Retail Sales Will Grow to $250 Billion by
2014.” TechCrunch, March 8, 2010. techcrunch.com.
[16] Nicola Clark. “Selecting a Seatmate to Make Skies Friendlier.” New York Times, Febru-
ary 24, 2012.
[17] Daniel H. Pink. “The Book Stops Here.” Wired, page 125, March 2005.
[18] Paul Festa. “Dialing for Bloggers.” New York Times, February 25, 2003.
[19] “Get the Best Route, Every Day, with Real-Time Help from Other Drivers.” Waze, Inc.,
June 17, 2013. www.waze.com.
[20] Laura Pappano. “The Year of the MOOC.” New York Times, November 2, 2012. www
.nytimes.com.
[21] Associated Press. “50 Million Historical Documents Posted on Web.” CNN.com, April
5, 2003.
[22] “World of Warcraft Reaches New Milestone: 10 Million Subscribers.” Blizzard Enter-
tainment, January 22, 2008. eu.blizzard.com.
[23] Tim Ingham. “CHINA: Warcraft Hits One Million Unique Users.” MCV, April 14,
2008. www.mcvuk.com.
[24] Jimmy Yap. “Power Up!” Internet Magazine, February 2003.
[25] David Barboza. “Ogre to Slay? Outsource It to China.” New York Times, December 9,
2005.
[26] “Experience Smart Home Awesomation.” Revolv, June 14, 2013. revolv.com.
[27] Internal Revenue Service. “Return Preparation and Filing Options.” IRS.gov, June 17,
2013. www.irs.gov.
[28] David Streitfeld. “Tech Industry Sets Its Sights on Gambling.” New York Times, Febru-
ary 17, 2013. www.nytimes.com.
[29] Bob Tedeschi. “Gambling Sites Adjust to Scrutiny.” New York Times, March 31, 2003.
[30] Kiva (Web site). Accessed October 4, 2013. www.kiva.org.
[31] Tolu Oguniesi and Stephanie Busari. “Seven Ways Mobile Phones Have Changed Lives
in Africa.” CNN, September 12, 2012. www.cnn.com.
[32] Maggie Shiels. “Twitter Co-founder Jack Dorsey Rejoins Company.” BBC News, March
28, 2011. www.bbc.co.uk.
[33] Emma Barnett. “Twitter Record Broken during the Women’s World Cup Final.” Tele-
graph (London, England) July 18, 2011. www.telegraph.co.uk.
[34] Claire Cain Miller. “Mom-and-Pop Operators Turn to Social Media.” New York Times,
July 23, 2009.
[35] Clay Shirky. “The Political Power of Social Media.” Foreign Affairs, January/February
2011.
[36] Philip N. Howard. “The Arab Spring’s Cascading Effects.” Pacific Standard, February
23, 2011, www.psmag.com.
[37] “Region in Turmoil.” Al Jazeera. Accessed August 8, 2011. blogs.aljazeera.net/twitter-
dashboard.
www.waze.com
www.nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com
www.mcvuk.com
www.irs.gov
www.nytimes.com
www.kiva.org
www.cnn.com
www.bbc.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.psmag.com
References 155
[38] William Saletan. “Springtime for Twitter.” Slate, July 18, 2011. www.slate.com.
[39] Malcolm Gladwell. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” New
Yorker, October 4, 2011.
[40] Eason Jordan. “News We Kept to Ourselves.” The New York Times, April 11, 2003.
[41] “About Filtering.” OpenNet Initiative, August 1, 2007. opennet.net/about-filtering.
[42] Stephen Gibbs. “Cuba Law Tightens Internet Access.” BBC News, January 24, 2004.
[43] Rebecca MacKinnon. “Chinese Cell Phone Breaches North Korean Hermit Kingdom.”
YaleGlobal Online, January 17, 2005.
[44] Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman. “Documentation of Internet Filtering in
Saudi Arabia.” Technical report, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, September 12,
2002.
[45] Rebekah Heacock. “China Shuts Down Internet in Xinjiang Region after Riots.” Open-
Net Initiative, July 6, 2009. opennet.org.
[46] Asher Moses. “Censoring Mobiles and the Net: How the West Is Clamping Down.”
Sydney Morning Herald, August 15, 2011. www.smh.com.au.
[47] “Internet Filtering in China.” OpenNet Initiative, June 15, 2009. opennet.net.
[48] Oliver August. “Staring Down the Censors.” Wired, November 2007.
[49] “IOC Agrees to Internet Blocking at the Games.” New York Times, July 30, 2008.
[50] Immanuel Kant. “What Is Enlightenment?” In Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals, Library of Liberal Arts, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[51] John Stuart Mill. “On Liberty.” In On Liberty and Utilitarianism. Bantam Books, New
York, NY, 1993.
[52] Edward G. Hudon. Freedom of Speech and Press in America. Public Affairs Press, Wash-
ington, DC, 1963.
[53] Francis Canavan. Freedom of Expression: Purpose as Limit . Carolina Academic Press,
Durham, NC, 1984.
[54] Cass R. Sunstein. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. The Free Press, New York,
NY, 1993.
[55] G. Steven Agee. Jeremy Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia. Court of Appeals of
Virginia, Record No. 062388, September 12, 2008.
[56] George Carlin. “Filthy Words.” On Occupation: Foole. Atlantic Records, 1973.
[57] Supreme Court of the United States. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica
Foundation et al., 438 US 726 (1978).
[58] “Parent-Controlled Filtering Software.” Irvine Unified School District, Orange
County, California. Accessed October 5, 2013. www.iusd.org.
[59] Associated Press. “Justices Uphold Use of Internet Filters in Public Libraries.” NY-
Times.com, June 23, 2003.
[60] Jeffrey Kosseff. “Libraries Should Bar Web Porn, Court Rules.” Oregonian (Portland,
OR), June 24, 2003.
[61] James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA,
2003.
[62] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, p. 187. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
www.slate.com
www.smh.com.au
www.iusd.org
156 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
[63] Lorenne Clark. “Sexual Equality and the Problem of an Adequate Moral Theory: The
Poverty of Liberalism.” In Contemporary Moral Issues, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto,
1997.
[64] Langdon Winner. “Electronically Implanted ‘Values’.” Technology Review, 100(2), Feb-
ruary/March 1997.
[65] Doug Johnson. “Internet Filters: Censorship by Any Other Name?” Emergency Librar-
ian, 25(5), May/June 1998.
[66] “Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey: Cyberbullying, Sexting, and Parental Con-
trols.” Cox Communications, May 2009.
[67] Mike Celizic. “Her Teen Committed Suicide over ‘Sexting.’ ” TodayShow.com, March
6, 2009. www.msnbc.msn.com.
[68] Martin Dula. “Sexting: The Convergence of Two Revolutions.” Pop Culture History
(blog). June 25, 2009. www.greathistory.com.
[69] Kim Zetter. “‘Sexting’ Hysteria Falsely Brands Educator as Child Pornographer.”
Wired, April 3, 2009. www.wired.com.
[70] “2009 Legislation Related to ‘Sexting.’ ” National Conference of State Legislatures, July
27, 2009. www.ncsl.org.
[71] Dorothy E. Denning. Information Warfare and Security, p. 241. Addison-Wesley,
Boston, MA, 1999.
[72] States News Service. “FTC Testifies on Identify Theft, Impact on Seniors.” July 18,
2002.
[73] Matt Richtel. “Financial Institutions May Facilitate Identity Theft.” NYTimes.com, Au-
gust 12, 2002.
[74] Javelin Strategy & Research. “2011 Identity Fraud Survey Report: Consumer Version.”
February 2011. www.javelinstrategy.com.
[75] Javelin Strategy & Research. “2009 Identity Fraud Survey Report: Consumer Version.”
February 2009. www.javelinstrategy.com.
[76] Jason Gertzen. “Protect Your Finances from Online Fraudsters, Experts Warn.” Mil-
waukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, December 8, 2003.
[77] David McGuire. “Bush Signs Identity Theft Bill.” WashingtonPost.com, July 15, 2004.
[78] Federal Trade Commission. “Take Charge: Fighting Back against Identity Theft.”
FTC.gov, February 2005. www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline.pubs.
[79] “Gartner Says Identity Theft Is Up Nearly 80 Percent.” Gartner, Inc., July 21, 2003.
www.gartner.com.
[80] “Nielsen/NetRatings Finds E-mail Is the Dominant Online Activity Worldwide.”
Nielsen/NetRatings, May 9, 2002. www.nielsen-netratings.com.
[81] Lynn Burke. “Memoir of a Pedophile’s Victim.” Wired News, April 26, 2000. www
.wired.com.
[82] Shaila K. Dewan. “Who’s 14, ‘Kewl’ and Flirty Online? A 39-Year-Old Detective, and
He Knows His Bra Size.” New York Times, April 7, 2003.
[83] Thomas Clouse. “Man Accused of Seeking Sex with 13-Year-Old Girl; Police Say In-
ternet Sting Caught Suspect Who Had Handcuffs, Knife.” Spokane (WA) Spokesman-
Review, March 5, 2003.
[84] “Police Say Arkansas Man Made an Online Deal to Buy a Little Girl for Sex.” ZDNet
UK , September 3, 1999. news.zdnet.co.uk.
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.greathistory.com
www.wired.com
www.ncsl.org
www.javelinstrategy.com
www.javelinstrategy.com
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline.pubs
www.gartner.com
www.nielsen-netratings.com
www.wired.com
www.wired.com
References 157
[85] “Chat Room Cops Nab Possible Predator.” TechTV Inc., May 17, 2002. www.techtv
.com.
[86] Paige Akin. “Man Arrested in Undercover Cyber Sex Sting.” Richmond (VA) Times
Dispatch, March 8, 2003.
[87] Suzannah Gonzales. “Sex Case May Lead to More Charges.” St. Petersburg (FL) Times,
March 14, 2003.
[88] Jennifer Sinco Kelleher. “Arrests in Sex Chats with ‘Girls.’ ” Newsday, March 15, 2003.
[89] Amy Klein. “Cops in the Chat Room; Detectives Play Teenagers to Bait Sexual Preda-
tors.” Bergen County (NJ) Record April 6, 2003.
[90] Andy Baio. “Finding the Star Wars Kid.” Waxy.org (blog), May 13, 2003. waxy.org.
[91] Tu Thanh Ha. “Parents File Lawsuit over Star Wars Video.” Globe and Mail, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, July 23, 2003.
[92] “Star Wars Kid Is Top Viral Video.” BBC News, November 27, 2006. www.bbc.co.uk.
[93] Steve Pokin. “‘MySpace’ Hoax Ends with Suicide of Dardenne Prairie Teen.” Suburban
Journals, November 11, 2007. suburbanjournals.stltoday.com.
[94] “Parents Want Jail Time for MySpace Hoax Mom.” ABC News, November 29, 2007.
abcnews.go.com.
[95] Kim Zetter. “Government’s Star Witness Stumbles: MySpace Hoax Was Her Idea, Not
Drew’s.” Wired, November 20, 2008. www.wired.com.
[96] “Missouri Begins Prosecuting under Cyberbullying Law.” Fox News, December 20,
2008. www.foxnews.com.
[97] Kim Zetter. “Lori Drew Not Guilty of Felonies in Landmark Cyberbullying Trial.”
Wired, November 26, 2008. www.wired.com.
[98] Kim Zetter. “Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case, Overrules Jury.” Wired,
July 2, 2009. www.wired.com.
[99] Congressional Research Service. “H. R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention
Act (Summary).” April 2, 2009. www.govtrack.us.
[100] “Internet Addiction: Genuine Diagnosis or Not?” Lancet , February 19, 2000.
[101] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. Merriam-Webster, Springfield,
MA, 1994.
[102] Stanton Peele. The Meaning of Addiction: An Unconventional View. Jossey-Bass, 1998.
[103] Kimberly S. Young. “Internet Addiction: Symptoms, Evaluation, and Treatment.” In
Innovations in Clinical Practice, volume 17, edited by L. VandeCreek and T. L. Jackson.
Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, FL, 1999.
[104] Mark Griffiths. “Does Internet and Computer ‘Addiction’ Exist? Some Case Study
Evidence.” CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(2), 2000.
[105] John P. Charlton. “A Factor-Analysis Investigation of Computer ‘Addiction’ and En-
gagement.” British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), p. 340. August 2002.
[106] Aydrea Walden. “Center Helps Those Hooked on Internet.” Seattle (WA) Times, Febru-
ary 5, 2002.
[107] Jeffrey Reiman. Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Lanham, MD, 1997.
[108] Immanuel Kant. Lectures on Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[109] John Del Signore. “NJ Student Suspended for ‘Trolling’ on YouTube, Facebook.”
Gothamist (blog), January 16, 2013. gothamist.com.
www.techtv.com
www.techtv.com
www.bbc.co.uk
www.wired.com
www.foxnews.com
www.wired.com
www.wired.com
www.govtrack.us
158 Chapter 3 Networked Communications
[110] Matt Richtel. “Devices Enforce Silence of Cellphones, Illegally.” New York Times,
November 4, 2007. www.nytimes.com.
[111] US Department of State. “Internet Freedom.” Fact sheet, February 15, 2011. www.state
.gov.
[112] “Protesters Angry about Police Shooting Shut Down S.F. Subway Stop.” CNN, July 12,
2011. www.cnn.com.
[113] “S.F. Subway System Admits Cutting Cellphone Service to Stop Planned Protest.”
CNN, August 13, 2011. news.blocks.cnn.com.
www.nytimes.com
www.state.gov
www.state.gov
www.cnn.com
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
Michael Liebhold
Mike Liebhold is a senior researcher at the Institute for the Future,
focusing on the mobile and abundant computation, immersive media,
and geospatial Web foundations for context-aware and ubiquitous
computing. Previously, Mike was a visiting researcher at Intel Labs,
working on a pattern language based on semantic Web frameworks for
ubiquitous computing. Before that, during the late 1990s, Mike worked
on start-ups building large-scale international public IT services and IP
networks for rural and remote regions and for GPS-enhanced precision
agriculture, a complete IT architecture for schools in Shandong Province,
China, and satellite networks in India, Europe, and Latin America. He was the principal investigator
for a National Science Foundation project to bring Internet2 broadband IP networks to 70 rural
low-income communities in the United States.
Mike is a frequent speaker on the topic of the geospatial Web and has authored a number of papers,
including one recently published in a special edition of the IEEE Journal on Pervasive Computing, “Data
Management in the World-Wide Sensor Web.”
You’ve said the Apple iPhone represents one of the most important inflection points in
the history of technology. What makes the iPhone so significant?
I’ve been working in technology since 1977. My iPhone is the most profoundly impressive device that
I’ve ever been around. What it represents is a mobile computer that everyone can afford. It’s a device
that can compute. It can give you Web access to all kinds of media information. It’s a global library.
And that’s the way to think about the Web—as a global library for humanity. It supports rich video
and audio, so you can actually imagine a spoken interactive interface to the global library that would
let you gain access to information without being literate. It has position sensing. The device knows
where it is, so very precise contextual information can become available to people.
Our forecast is that between 2015 and 2020 every human on Earth will be able to afford a device that’s
equivalent to an iPhone. Now that’s not to say that the cost of network and data connectivity is going to
drop commensurately, but over time there will be improved and lower-cost networks for every human
on Earth. And so I think we’re at the dawning of a new wave of global literacy and connectivity.
In your answer you alluded to computers being able to provide information to people
based on their location. How is geographical information being introduced into the Web?
The geospatial Web has four components. The first is Web information that is identified by URL and
its location: by latitude and longitude and increasingly by elevation. We now have Web standards that
allow you to publish a piece of information by location that’s viewable in a variety of Web browsers.
The second component is a collection of Web-enabled maps of many varieties. Environmental maps,
infrastructure maps, commercial maps, historical maps, cultural maps—many types of free and mal-
leable maps are coming online. When I say malleable, I mean you can import the data that work with
the map. The third component is real-time sensor data, such as temperature data, humidity data, and
video feeds from cameras. Finally, the component of the geospatial Web that’s not quite here yet is
embedded information. I’ve seen a computer chip that’s as tiny as a mote of dust that has a CPU, a
memory and a radio. There’s a group at Carnegie Mellon that has made a Web server that’s about as
big as your fingernail on your little finger. So you can begin to imagine the physical things and physical
places that are going to incorporate data.
What are people going to do with all this information?
There’s a thought exercise that I do regularly, and I encourage people to think of it this way. I imagine
I can see the invisible information. As I walk by a tree, I pretend I can see a label that identifies not
only the species of the tree but whether it’s been watered or pruned lately—its maintenance record. I
look at a building, and I imagine I can see the architectural drawings behind the facade. As I look at a
historical building, I imagine I can see the tags that describe the historical significance of the place. As
I see someone down the street, I imagine they’ve got a digital cloak on and that they’re a game player
in a physical space. As I walk by a restaurant or a store, I can see a listing of the things that are in the
store. As I walk down the street, I can see traffic indicators—arrows pointing the direction for me.
And in fact these things are all practical now. It’s now possible for the viewfinder in your phone to be a
Web browser, so you can hold up the viewfinder of your phone and see data attached to a place. Many
applications are already available for the iPhone and Android, and there are more to come. There are
restaurant menus that you can see as you walk down the street. There are applications that show you
the health risk or danger of a place. There are applications that show you if it’s safe to park your car.
There are applications that guide you to real estate listings, and on and on and on.
You’ve been talking about using computers to augment reality, to give people more
information about where they are and what they are looking at in the real world. What
about the tens of millions of people who use computers to escape to virtual worlds through
games like World of Warcraft or Halo?
I have to say that World of Warcraft and many other games are coming. Point-and-shoot video games
are immensely popular among young men. So, yes, we do see that in their homes people are going to
put on glasses and enjoy all kinds of immersive 3-D experiences, games, virtual travel, and lots of other
kinds of things. That’s fairly legitimate, but I don’t think people are going to be gone or lost any more
than they are watching television today. People will get up and go outside. The world is an exciting
place.
On the other hand, if I “travel” in a virtual world, I don’t have to worry about the long
lines at airport security or the big crowd waiting to see David in Florence.
Telepresence might attract a lot of people, and it’s going to help global literacy. There will be very
compelling experiences with 3-D, and I think people are going to have a lot richer understanding of
the world. But telepresence will never equal walking on the streets of Rome.
Tell me more about how people will use telepresence to enhance their lives in the “real
world.”
We see really remarkable things happening with applications like Skype videoconferencing. Distant
relatives turn on Skype and leave it on all day because it’s essentially free. I heard a story about two
elderly sisters who use Skype voice calls. They turn it on, sit down, knit, chat, feed the cat, and enjoy
each other’s companionship. I met a guy who bought a flat-screen television for his parents in France.
They put it in their dining area, and he’s got one in his kitchen. So when he sits down to have brunch
on Sunday mornings his parents have dinner in France. And they can just leave it on and have a family
meal together.
I think this is another great trend. I think that modern technology is actually bringing families and
friends closer together instead of alienating or isolating people.
C H A P T E R
4 Intellectual
Property
Friends share all things.
—–Pythagoras
Today’s pirates operate not on the high seas but on the Internet.
—–Recording Industry Association of America
4.1 Introduction
At a Bowling for Soup concert, the band made up a song onstage. Singer Jaret Reddick
says, “That thing was on YouTube before I even got back home from the show” [1]. Do
entertainers have the right to control who sees and hears a performance of their music?
About 40 percent of software installed on personal computers worldwide and about
80 percent of software in China is obtained illegally [2]. Is it fair for some people to pay
full price for software when so many others are getting the same programs for little or
no money?
A survey of digital music collections of young American adults aged 18–29 revealed
that on average 22 percent of the files were downloaded for free and another 22 percent
were copied from friends or family members [3]. Several years ago the Recording Indus-
try Association of America (RIAA) identified egregious file sharers, sent each of them
a letter warning of an impending lawsuit, and gave them the opportunity to settle out
of court, usually by paying between $3,000 and $5,000 [4]. Boston University graduate
162 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Figure 4.1 The Electronic Frontier Foundation is advocating a reform of the copyright laws
in the United States. (Advertisement from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Copyright
© 2011 by Electronic Frontier Foundation [Creative Commons]. Reprinted with permis-
sion.)
student Joel Tenenbaum refused to settle out of court, was found guilty of violating copy-
right law by downloading and sharing 30 songs, and ordered by the jury to pay record
companies $675,000 [5]. (A judge later reduced the penalty to $67,500 [6].) Opposing
the RIAA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has urged Americans to put pressure on
Congress to change copyright laws (Figure 4.1) [7].
As a society we benefit from access to high-quality music, movies, computer pro-
grams, and other products of the human intellect. The value of these intellectual prop-
erties is much higher than the cost of the media on which they are distributed, tempting
people to make unauthorized copies. When this happens, producers of intellectual prop-
erty do not receive all the payments the law says they are entitled to. The legal system
has responded by giving more rights to the creators of intellectual property. Are these
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights 163
changes in the best interests of our society, or are politicians catering to special interest
groups?
In this chapter we discuss how information technology is affecting our notions of
intellectual property. We consider what makes intellectual property different from tan-
gible property and how governments have created a variety of mechanisms to guarantee
intellectual property rights. We examine what has been considered “fair use” of intellec-
tual property created by others, and how new copy protection technologies are eroding
the notions of fair use. Meanwhile, peer-to-peer networks are making it easier than ever
for consumers to get access to music and movies without purchasing them. We look at
what the entertainment industry is doing to fight free access to copyrighted material. We
also explore the evolution of intellectual property protection for computer software and
the rise of the open-source movement, which advocates the distribution of source code
to programs. Finally, we take a look at one organization’s efforts to make it easier for
artists, musicians, and writers to use the Internet as a vehicle for stimulating creativity
and enhancing collaboration.
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual property is any unique product of the human intellect that has commercial
value [8]. Examples of intellectual property are books, songs, movies, paintings, inven-
tions, chemical formulas, and computer programs.
It is important to distinguish between intellectual property and its physical mani-
festation in some medium. If a poet composes a new poem, for example, the poem itself
is the intellectual property, not the piece of paper on which the poem is printed.
In most of the world there is a widely accepted notion that people have the right
to own property. Does this right extend to intellectual property as well? To answer
this question, we need to examine the philosophical justification for a natural right to
property.
4.2.1 Property Rights
The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) developed an influential theory of
property rights. In The Second Treatise of Government , Locke makes the following case
for a natural right to property. First, people have a right to property in their own person.
Nobody has a right to the person of anybody else. Second, people have a right to their
own labor. The work that people perform should be to their own benefit. Third, people
have a right to those things that they have removed from Nature through their own
labor [9].
For example, suppose you are living in a village, in the middle of woods that are
held in common. One day you walk into the woods, chop down a tree, saw it into logs,
and split the logs into firewood (Figure 4.2). Before you cut down the tree, everyone had
a common right to it. By the time you have finished splitting the logs, you have mixed
your labor with the wood, and at that point it has become your property. Whether you
164 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Figure 4.2 According to John Locke, people have a natural right to the things they have
removed from Nature through their own labor.
burn the wood in your stove, sell it to someone else, pile it up for the winter, or give it
away, the choice of what to do with the wood is yours.
Locke uses the same reasoning to explain how a person can gain the right to a piece
of land. Taking a parcel out of the state of Nature by clearing the trees, tilling the soil,
and planting and harvesting crops gives people who performed these labors the right to
call the land their property.
To Locke, this definition of property makes sense as long as two conditions hold.
First, no person claims more property than he or she can use. In the case of harvesting a
natural resource, it is wrong for someone to take so much that some of it is wasted. For
example, people should not appropriate more land than they can tend. Second, when
people remove something from the common state in order to make it their own property,
there is still plenty left over for others to claim through their labor. If the woods are full of
trees, I can chop a tree into firewood without denying you or anyone else the opportunity
to do the same thing.
Locke’s description of a natural right to property is most useful at explaining how
virtually unlimited resources are initially appropriated. It is not as useful in situations
where there are limited resources left for appropriation.
4.2.2 Extending the Argument to Intellectual Property
Is there a natural right to intellectual property?
We can try to demonstrate that such a right exists by extending Locke’s theory of
property rights to intellectual property. However, since Locke was talking about the
ownership of physical objects and we are talking about the ownership of ideas, we must
resort to an analogy. We’ll compare writing a play to making a belt buckle [10]. In order
to make a belt buckle, a person must mine ore, smelt it down, and cast it. To write a
play, a playwright “mines” words from the English language, “smelts” them into stirring
prose, and “casts” them into a finished play.
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights 165
Attempting to treat intellectual property the same as ordinary property leads to
certain paradoxes, as Michael Scanlan has observed [10]. We consider two of Scanlan’s
scenarios illustrating problems that arise when we extend Locke’s natural rights argu-
ment to intellectual property.
� Scenario A, Act 1
After a day of rehearsals at the Globe Theatre, William Shakespeare decides to
have supper at a pub across the street. The pub is full of gossip about royal
intrigue in Denmark. After his second pint of beer, Shakespeare is visited by the
muse, and in an astonishing burst of energy, he writes Hamlet in one fell swoop.
�
If we apply Locke’s theory of property to this situation, clearly Shakespeare has the
right to own Hamlet . He mixed his labor with the raw resources of the English language
and produced a play. Remember, we’re not talking about the piece of paper upon which
the words of the play are written. We’re talking about the sequence of words comprising
the play. The paper is simply a way of conveying them.
What should Shakespeare get from his ownership of Hamlet? Here are two ideas
(you can probably think of more): He should have the right to decide who will perform
the play. He should have the right to require others who are performing the play to pay
him a fee.
So far, so good. But let’s hear the end of the story.
� Scenario A, Act 2
On the very same night, Ben Jonson, at a pub on the opposite side of London,
hears the same gossip, is struck by the same muse, and writes Hamlet —exactly
the same play! �
Ben Jonson has mixed his intellectual labor with the English language to produce
a play. According to Locke’s theory of natural rights to property, he ought to own it. Is
it possible for both Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare to own the same play (Figure
4.3)? No, not as we have defined ownership rights. It is impossible for both of them to
have the exclusive right to decide who will perform the play. Both of them cannot have
an exclusive claim to royalties collected when Hamlet is performed. We’ve uncovered a
paradox: two people labored independently and produced only a single artifact.
We ended up with this paradox because our analogy is imperfect. If two people go
to the same iron mine, dig ore, smelt it, and cast it into belt buckles, there are two belt
buckles, one for each person. Even if the belt buckles look identical, they are distinct,
and we can give each person ownership of one of them. This is not the case with Hamlet .
Even though Jonson and Shakespeare worked independently, there is only one Hamlet :
the sequence of words that constitute the play. Whether we give one person complete
ownership or divide the ownership among the two men, both cannot get full ownership
of the play, which is what they ought to have if the analogy were perfect. Therefore, the
uniqueness of intellectual properties is the first way in which they differ from physical
objects.
166 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Figure 4.3 Suppose both Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare simultaneously write down
Hamlet . Who owns it? (Ben Jonson, Walker Art Library/Alamy; Shakespeare, Classic Image/Alamy)
A second paradox has to do with the copying of intellectual property. Consider a
slightly different version of our story.
� Scenario B
One evening William Shakespeare stays up all night in a pub writing Hamlet
while Ben Jonson goes to a party. The next morning Shakespeare returns to the
Globe Theatre, but he carelessly leaves a copy of Hamlet in the pub. Jonson stops
by for a pint, sees the manuscript, transcribes it, and walks out the door with a
copy of the play in his possession, leaving the original copy where it was. �
Did Jonson steal Hamlet ? Shakespeare still has his physical copy of the play, but he
has lost exclusive control over who will read, perform, or hear the play. If you want to
call this stealing, then stealing in the sense of intellectual property is quite different from
stealing a physical object. When you steal someone’s car, they can’t drive it anymore.
When you steal someone’s joke, both of you can tell it.
Certainly any creator of a piece of intellectual property has the right to keep his
ideas a secret. After Shakespeare wrote Hamlet , he could have locked it in a trunk
to prevent others from seeing it. Ben Jonson would not have had the right to break
into Shakespeare’s trunk to get access to the play. Hence we can argue that there is a
natural right to keep an idea confidential. Unfortunately, this is a weak right, because
Shakespeare cannot perform the play while he is keeping it confidential. He must give
up the confidentiality in order to put his creation to good use.
We began this section with the follwing question: Is there a natural right to intel-
lectual property? We have found no right other than the weak right to keep an idea
confidential. In our quest for stronger rights, we have uncovered two important dif-
ferences between tangible property and intellectual property. First, every intellectual
property is one-of-a-kind. Second, copying a piece of intellectual property is different
from stealing a physical object.
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights 167
4.2.3 Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection
New ideas in the form of inventions and artistic works can improve the quality of life for
the members of a society. Some people are altruistic and will gladly share their creative
energies. For example, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) invented many useful items,
including an improved woodstove, the lightning rod, the odometer, and bifocals. He did
not patent any of them. Franklin said, “As we enjoy great advantages from the invention
of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously” [11, p. 28]. However, most people find the
allure of wealth to be a strong inducement for laboring long hours in the hope of creating
something useful. So even if there are no natural rights to intellectual property, a society
may choose to grant intellectual property rights to people because of the beneficial
consequences.
The authors of the Constitution of the United States recognized the benefits soci-
ety reaps by encouraging creativity. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives
Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries.”
If a person has the right to control the distribution and use of a piece of intellectual
property, there are many opportunities for that person to make money. For example,
suppose you build a better mousetrap and the government gives you ownership of this
design. You may choose to manufacture the mousetrap yourself. Anyone who wants the
better mousetrap must buy it from you, because no other mousetrap manufacturer has
the right to copy your design. Alternatively, you may choose to license your design to
other manufacturers, who will pay you for the right to build mousetraps according to
your design.
On the other hand, it is possible for you to be rewarded for your creativity without
the new device ever reaching the public. Suppose you sell an exclusive license for your
better mousetrap to the company that dominates the mousetrap market. The company
chooses not to manufacture the new mousetrap because—for whatever reason—it can
make more money selling the existing technology. In this situation you and the company
benefit, but society is deprived access to the new, improved technology.
4.2.4 Limits to Intellectual Property Protection
Society benefits the most when inventions are in the public domain and anyone can
take advantage of them. Going back to the mousetrap example, we would like everyone
in society who needs a mousetrap to get the best possible trap. If someone invents a
superior mousetrap, the maximum benefit would result if all mousetrap manufacturers
were able to use the better design. On the other hand, if the inventor of the superior
mousetrap did not have any expectation of profiting from her new design, she may not
have bothered to invent it. Hence there is a tension between the need to reward the
creators of intellectual property by giving them exclusive rights to their ideas and the
need to disseminate these ideas as widely as possible.
The way Congress has traditionally addressed this tension is through a compromise.
It has granted authors and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries but
168 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Previous Year Became Purchase
Artist Work Rental Fee Public Domain Price
Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 1 $450.00 1987 $155.00
Ravel Mother Goose Suite 540.00 1988 70.00
Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 2 540.00 1989 265.00
Griffes The White Peacock 335.00 1993 42.00
Puccini O Mio Babbino Caro 252.00 1994 26.00
Respighi Fountains of Rome 441.00 1994 140.00
Ravel Le Tombeau de Couperin 510.00 1995 86.00
Respighi Ancient Aires and Dances Suite no. 1 441.00 1996 85.00
Elgar Cello Concerto 550.00 1997 140.00
Holst The Planets 815.00 1997 300.00
Ravel Alborada Del Gracioso 360.00 1999 105.00
Table 4.1 Once a piece of classical music enters the public domain, it may be purchased for
much less than it cost simply to rent the same piece of music for two performances when
it was still under copyright protection. These prices assume the orchestra has an annual
budget of $150,000 or less [12]. (Table from “Letter to The Honorable Senator Spencer Abraham,”
by Randolph P. Luck from Luck’s Music Library. Copyright © 1996 by Randolph P. Luck. Reprinted
with permission.)
only for a limited period of time. (Note: Rights to a piece of intellectual property pro-
duced by an employee in the normal course of his or her duties belong to the employer.)
At the end of that time period, the intellectual property enters the public domain. While
creators have control over the distribution of their properties, use of the properties is
more expensive, and the creators are rewarded. After properties enter the public do-
main, using them becomes less expensive, and everyone has the opportunity to produce
derivative works from them.
Consider a community orchestra that wishes to perform a piece of classical music.
It may purchase a piece of music from the public domain for far less money than it
cost simply to rent the same piece of music while it was still protected by copyright
(Table 4.1).
The question is, what is a reasonable length of time to grant authors and inventors
exclusive rights to their creative works? Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer [13],
Kembrew McLeod [14], and Lawrence Lessig [15] have used “Happy Birthday to You”
as evidence that copyright protections are excessive.
“Happy Birthday to You” is the most popular song in the world. Have you ever won-
dered why you almost never hear it sung on television? The reason is that the music
publisher Clayton F. Summy Company (now a subsidiary of Time Warner) copyrighted
the song in 1935, and television networks must pay Time Warner to air it. Time Warner
collects about $2 million in royalties each year for public performances of “Happy Birth-
day to You” [16]. Under the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the song will remain
copyrighted until at least 2030.
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property 169
More recently, George Washington University law professor Robert Brauneis has
objected that “Happy Birthday to You” should not be used as an example of the “overly
generous protection of copyright law.” In a meticulously researched article, he concludes
that the song “is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence
about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper
renewal application” [17]. However, to this date no one has challenged Time Warner’s
copyright in court.
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property
While the US Constitution gives Congress the right to grant authors and inventors
exclusive rights to their creations, it does not elaborate on how these rights will be
protected. Today there are four different ways in which individuals and organizations
protect their intellectual property: trade secrets, trademarks/service marks, patents, and
copyrights.
4.3.1 Trade Secrets
A trade secret is a confidential piece of intellectual property that provides a company
with a competitive advantage. Examples of trade secrets include formulas, processes,
proprietary designs, strategic plans, customer lists, and other collections of information.
The right of a company to protect its trade secrets is widely recognized by governments
around the world. In order to maintain its rights to a trade secret, a company must
take active measures to keep it from being discovered. For example, companies typically
require employees with access to a trade secret to execute a confidentiality agreement.
A famous trade secret is the formula for Coca-Cola syrup. The formula, known
inside the company as “Merchandise 7X,” is locked in a bank vault in Atlanta, Georgia.
Only a few people within the company know the entire formula, and they have signed
nondisclosure agreements. The task of making the syrup is divided among different
groups of employees. Each group makes only one part of the final mixture, so that
nobody in these groups learns the complete recipe.
An advantage of trade secrets is that they do not expire. A company never has to
disclose a trade secret. Coca-Cola has kept its formula secret for more than 100 years.
The value of trade secrets is in their confidentiality. Hence trade secrets are not an
appropriate way to protect many forms of intellectual property. For example, it makes
no sense for a company to make a movie a trade secret, because a company can only
profit from a movie by allowing it to be viewed, which makes it no longer confidential.
On the other hand, it is appropriate for a company to make the idea for a movie a trade
secret. Art Buchwald pitched Paramount Pictures a story called King for a Day, about an
African prince who visits the United States. After the studio produced the movie Coming
to America, starring Eddie Murphy, Buchwald successfully sued Paramount for breach of
contract, because he had made the studio sign a confidentiality agreement before he gave
them the plot [18].
170 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
While it is illegal to steal a trade secret, there are other ways in which the confiden-
tiality may be broken. “Reverse engineering” is one way in which a competing firm can
legally gain access to information contained in a trade secret. If another company can
purchase a can of Coca-Cola and figure out the formula, it is free to manufacture a soft
drink that looks and tastes just like Coke.
Another way in which a competing firm can gain access to information contained
in another company’s trade secret is by hiring its employees. While a firm can require
its employees to sign confidentiality agreements, it cannot erase the memories of an em-
ployee who starts working for a competing firm. Hence some “leakage” of confidential
information may be inevitable when employees move from one company to another.
4.3.2 Trademarks and Service Marks
A trademark is a word, symbol, picture, sound, or color used by a business to identify
goods. A service mark is a mark identifying a service [19]. By granting a trademark or
service mark, a government gives a company the right to use it and the right to prevent
other companies from using it. Through the use of a trademark, a company can establish
a “brand name.” Society benefits from branding because branding allows consumers to
have more confidence in the quality of the products they purchase.
When a company is the first to market a distinctive product, it runs the risk that its
brand name will become a common noun used to describe any similar product. When
this happens, the company may lose its right to exclusive use of the brand name. Some
trademarks that have become generic are “yo yo,” “aspirin,” “escalator,” “thermos,” and
“brassiere.”
Companies strive to ensure their marks are used as adjectives rather than nouns
or verbs. One way they do this is through advertising (Figure 4.4). Kimberly-Clark’s
advertisements refer to “Kleenex brand facial tissue.” Remember Johnson & Johnson’s
jingle, “I am stuck on Band-Aid brand ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me”?
Another way companies protect their trademarks is by contacting those who are
misusing them. For example, Adobe has responded to Web posts about “photoshopping
images” by posting this follow-up message: “The Photoshop trademark must never be
used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be
capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term” [20].
4.3.3 Patents
A patent is a way the US government provides an inventor with an exclusive right to a
piece of intellectual property. A patent is quite different from a trade secret because a
patent is a public document that provides a detailed description of the invention. The
owner of the patent can prevent others from making, using, or selling the invention for
the lifetime of the patent, which is currently 20 years. After the patent expires, anyone
has the right to make use of its ideas.
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property 171
Figure 4.4 Xerox Corporation ran this advertisement as part of its campaign to protect
its trademark. (Screenshot by Xerox. Copyright © 2012 by Xerox Corporation. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.)
POLAROID v. KODAK
Dr. Edwin Land invented “instant” photography. The company he founded, Polaroid
Corporation, had 10 patents protecting the invention of film that developed in 60 sec-
onds. Polaroid did not license these patents to other firms, and for many years it was
the only company to sell cameras and film allowing photographs to be developed in a
minute.
When Kodak introduced its first instant camera in 1976, Polaroid sued Kodak [21].
In 1985 a court ruled that Kodak had infringed on seven of Polaroid’s original ten
patents; six years later Kodak paid Polaroid a $925 million settlement [22, 23].
SPARC INTERNATIONAL
Sometimes companies see an advantage in licensing their inventions. After Sun Mi-
crosystems invented the SPARC architecture, it wanted to maximize the number of
SPARC-compliant computers being manufactured. For this reason, Sun transferred
ownership of the SPARC specifications to an independent, nonprofit organization called
SPARC International. SPARC International has licensed SPARC technology to a variety
of other firms. In 2013 the list of companies manufacturing SPARC-based systems in-
cluded Epoka Group A/S, Fujitsu Computer Systems, Itronix, Motorola, Nature World-
wide Technology Corporation (NatureTech), Rave Computer Association, Inc., Oracle
Corporation, Themis Computer, and Toshiba Corporation.
172 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
4.3.4 Copyrights
A copyright is how the US government provides authors with certain rights to original
works that they have written. The owner of a copyright has five principal rights:
1. The right to reproduce the copyrighted work
2. The right to distribute copies of the work to the public
3. The right to display copies of the work in public
4. The right to perform the work in public
5. The right to produce new works derived from the copyrighted work
Copyright owners have the right to authorize others to exercise these five rights
with respect to their works. The owner of a copyright to a play may sell a license to
a high school drama club that wishes to perform it. After a radio station broadcasts a
song, it must pay the songwriter(s) and the composer(s) through a performance rights
organization such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. Copyright owners also have the right to
prevent others from infringing on their rights to control the reproduction, distribution,
display, performance, and production of works derived from their copyrighted work.
By permission of John Deering and Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Several important industries in the United States, including the movie industry,
music industry, software industry, and book publishing, rely upon copyright law for
protection. “Copyright industries” account for over 6 percent of the United States gross
domestic product, with over $900 billion in sales. About 5 million US citizens work in
these industries, which are growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the US economy.
With foreign sales and exports of $134 billion, copyright industries were the leading
export sector in the United States in 2010 [24].
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property 173
In this section we examine court cases and legislation that have helped define the
limits of copyright in the United States.
GERSHWIN PUBLISHING v. COLUMBIA ARTISTS
Columbia Artists Management, Inc. (CAMI) managed concert artists, and it sponsored
hundreds of local, nonprofit community concert associations that arranged concert
series featuring CAMI artists. CAMI helped the associations prepare budgets, select
artists, and sell tickets. CAMI printed the programs and sold them to the community
concert associations. In addition, all musicians performing at these concerts paid CAMI
a portion of their fees.
On January 9, 1965, the CAMI-sponsored Port Washington (NY) Community Con-
cert Association put on a concert that included Gershwin’s “Bess, You Is My Woman
Now” without obtaining copyright clearance from Gershwin Publishing Corporation.
The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) sued CAMI for
the copyright infringement.
CAMI argued that it was not responsible for the copyright infringement, since the
concert was put on by the Port Washington Community Concert Association. However,
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that CAMI could be
held liable because it was aware that the community concert associations it supported
were not obtaining proper copyright clearances. In 1971 the US Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit upheld the ruling of the district court [25].
BASIC BOOKS v. KINKO’S GRAPHICS
In the 1980s, Kinko’s Graphics Corporation engaged in what it called the “Professor
Publishing” business. It distributed brochures to university professors asking them to
provide lists of readings they planned to use in their courses. Kinko’s used these lists
to produce packets of reading materials for students taking these classes. The packets
typically contained chapters from books. In 1991 the US District Court for the South-
ern District of New York ruled that when Kinko’s produced these packets it infringed
upon the copyrights held by the publishers. The judge ordered Kinko’s to pay statutory
damages of $510,000 to the plaintiffs, a group of eight book publishers [26]. Kinko’s
subsequently got out of the Professor Publishing business.
DAVEY JONES LOCKER
Richard Kenadek ran a computer bulletin board system (BBS) called Davey Jones Locker.
Subscribers paid $99 a year for access to the BBS, which contained copies of more
than 200 commercial programs. In 1994 Kenadek was indicted for infringing on the
copyrights of the owners of the software. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six
months’ home confinement and two years’ probation [27].
NO ELECTRONIC THEFT ACT
Another incident in 1994 led to further legislation protecting copyrights. David LaMac-
chia, an MIT student, posted copyrighted software on a public bulletin board he created
on a university computer. According to prosecutors, bulletin board users downloaded
more than a million dollars’ worth of software in less than two months. However, the
174 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
prosecutors were forced to drop charges against LaMacchia because he had made the
programs available for free. Since he had not profited from his actions, he had not vi-
olated copyright law. To close this legal loophole, Congress passed the No Electronic
Theft Act of 1997, which made it a criminal offense simply to reproduce or distribute
more than a thousand dollars’ worth of copyrighted material in a six-month period.
COPYRIGHT CREEP
As a result of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, works created and
published before January 1, 1978, are protected for 95 years. Works created on or after
January 1, 1978, are protected for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years after the author’s
death. If the work is a work made for hire, the length of protection is 95 years from the
date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is less.
According to Siva Vaidhyanathan, “in the early republic and the first century of
American legal history, copyright was a Madisonian compromise, a necessary evil, a lim-
ited, artificial monopoly, not to be granted or expanded lightly” [28, p. 24]. Over time,
however, Congress has gradually increased both the term of copyright protection and
the kind of intellectual properties that are protected by copyright (Figure 4.5). One rea-
son has been the desire to have international copyright agreements. In order to complete
these agreements, Congress has had to reconcile American copyright law with European
law, which in general has had much stronger protections for the producers of intellectual
property [28]. Another reason for “copyright creep” has been the introduction of new
technologies, such as photography, audio recording, and video recording.
For example, since 1831 music publishers have been able to copyright sheet music
and collect royalties from musicians performing this music in public. In 1899 Melville
Clark introduced the Apollo player piano, which played songs recorded on rolls of heavy
95
75
56
42
28
1790 1831 1909 1976 1998
Y
e
ar
s
o
f
p
ro
te
ct
io
n
Copyright creep
Computer software
Sound recordings
Books
Prints Sheet music
Corporate authorship
Motion pictures
Automatic renewal
Photographs
All literary works
Figure 4.5 Since the first Copyright Act was passed in 1790, both the length of copyright
protection and the kinds of intellectual property that can be copyrighted have grown
dramatically.
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property 175
paper. Apollo manufactured and sold piano rolls of copyrighted songs. White-Smith
Music Company sued Apollo for infringing on its copyrights. In 1908 the Supreme Court
ruled that Apollo had not infringed on White-Smith Music’s copyrights. The court
suggested that Congress ought to change copyright law if it wanted owners of copyrights
to have control over recordings such as piano rolls and phonograph records. Congress
responded by revising the Copyright Act in 1909. The new copyright law recognized that
player piano rolls and phonograph records could be copyrighted.
Some people believe the expansion of the scope of copyright protection has shifted
the balance of private versus public rights too far toward the copyright holders. They
say it is no coincidence that copyright terms were extended just before Mickey Mouse
was to enter the public domain. The Walt Disney Corporation lobbied Congress to pass
the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998, protecting its profits
derived from Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and its other famous characters [29]. Some
critics suggest that since Walt Disney made a great deal of money on Snow White and the
Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland,
and The Jungle Book, all based on stories taken from the public domain, it’s only fair that
at some point Walt Disney characters become part of the public domain, available for
others to use in new creative works [30].
Eric Eldred, who digitizes old books and makes them freely available over the Web,
led a group of petitioners who challenged the CTEA. They argued that the US Consti-
tution gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights to authors for “limited times,”
and that the writers of the Constitution expected copyright durations to be short. By
extending the terms of existing copyrights 11 times in 40 years, they said, Congress had
exceeded its constitutional power [31].
The government and groups representing the entertainment industry, including
the Walt Disney Co., the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording
Industry Association of America, argued that Congress does have the constitutional
authority to extend the terms of existing copyrights [32].
In a 7–2 decision the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and
the entertainment industry, stating that the petitioners did not demonstrate how the
CTEA had crossed “a constitutionally significant threshold.” In the opinion of the
Court, “Those earlier Acts did not create perpetual copyrights, and neither does the
CTEA” [33].
In 2004 the Royal Society of Arts in London commissioned an international group
of artists, scientists, and lawyers to create a statement regarding intellectual property
laws. The group wrote the Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual
Property. Within the charter is the following statement: “The expansion in the law’s
breadth, score, and term over the last 30 years has resulted in an intellectual property
regime which is radically out of line with modern technological, economic and social
trends. This threatens the chain of creativity and innovation on which we and future
generations depend” [34]. The charter proposes a set of public interest tests that gov-
ernments should apply before approving further changes to intellectual property laws.
To date, the Adelphi Charter has had little influence on the global debate over intellectual
property.
176 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
4.4 Fair Use
The right given to a copyright owner to reproduce a work is a limited right. Under some
circumstances, called fair use, it is legal to reproduce a copyrighted work without the
permission of the copyright holder. Examples of fair use include citing short excerpts
from copyrighted works for the purpose of teaching, scholarship, research, criticism,
commentary, and news reporting.
The United States Copyright Act does not precisely list the kinds of copying that are
fair use. Instead, what is considered to be fair use has been determined by the judicial
system. The courts have relied upon Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which lists four
factors that need to be considered [35]:
1. What is the purpose and character of the use?
An educational use is more likely to be permissible than a commercial use.
2. What is the nature of the work being copied?
Use of nonfiction is more likely to be permissible than use of fiction. Published
works are preferred over unpublished works.
3. How much of the copyrighted work is being used?
Brief excerpts are more likely to be permissible than entire chapters.
4. How will this use affect the market for the copyrighted work?
Use of out-of-print material is more likely to be permissible than use of a readily
available work. A spontaneously chosen selection is better than an assigned reading
in the course syllabus.
In the previous section on copyright, we discussed the case against Kinko’s. A num-
ber of factors led the judge to conclude that the reproductions made by Kinko’s Professor
Publishing business were not fair use. Kinko’s is a commercial enterprise; it started the
Professor Publishing business to make a profit. It copied significant portions of books
to create the course reading packets. Some of the books were still in print, hence Kinko’s
negatively affected the market for the copyrighted work. Finally, the readings were not
spontaneously chosen. Kinko’s had time to contact publishers and gain permission to
reproduce the materials, perhaps by paying a licensing fee.
Let’s consider two scenarios in which copyrighted works are duplicated and deter-
mine if they made fair use of the material. These scenarios are closely modeled after
situations presented on the Web site of CETUS, the Consortium for Educational Tech-
nology in University Systems (www.cetus.org).
� Fair use Example #1
A professor puts a few journal articles on reserve in the library and makes them
assigned reading for the class. Some students in the class complain that they
cannot get access to the articles because other students always seem to have them
checked out. The professor scans them and posts them on his Web site. The
professor gives the students in the class the password they need to access the
articles. �
www.cetus.org
4.4 Fair Use 177
The first factor to consider is the purpose of the use. In this case the purpose is
strictly educational. This factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor is the nature of the work being copied. The journal articles are
nonfiction. Again this weighs in favor of fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material being copied. The fact that the professor
is copying entire articles rather than brief excerpts weighs against a ruling of fair use.
The fourth factor is the effect the copying will have on the market for journal sales.
If the journal issues containing these articles are no longer for sale, then the professor’s
actions cannot affect the market. The professor took care to prevent people outside the
class from accessing the articles. Overall, this factor appears to weigh in favor of fair use.
Three of the four factors weigh in favor of fair use. The professor’s actions probably
constitute fair use of the copyrighted material.
� Fair use Example #2
An art professor takes slide photographs of a number of paintings reproduced in
a book about Renaissance artists. She uses the slides in her class lectures. �
The first factor to consider is the purpose of the copying. The professor’s purpose is
strictly educational. Hence the first factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor is the type of material being copied. The material is art. Hence
this factor weighs against a ruling of fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material copied. In this case, the professor is
displaying copies of the paintings in their entirety. Fair use almost never allows a work to
be copied in its entirety. Note that even if the original painting is in the public domain,
the photograph of the painting appearing in the art book is probably copyrighted.
The final factor is the effect the copying will have on the market. The determination
of this factor would depend on how many images the professor took from any one
book and whether the publisher is in the business of selling slides of individual images
appearing in its book.
Overall, this professor’s actions are less likely to be considered fair use than the
actions of the professor in the first scenario.
4.4.1 Sony v. Universal City Studios
In 1975 Sony introduced its Betamax system, the first consumer VCR. People used these
systems to record television shows for viewing later, a practice called time shifting. Some
customers recorded entire movies onto videotape.
A year later, Universal City Studios and Walt Disney Productions sued Sony, say-
ing it was responsible for copyright infringements performed by those who had pur-
chased VCRs. The movie studios sought monetary damages from Sony and an injunc-
tion against the manufacturing and marketing of VCRs. The legal battle went all the way
to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court evaluated the case in light of the four fair
use factors.
178 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
The first factor is the intended purpose of the copying. Since the purpose is private,
not commercial, time shifting should be seen as fair use with respect to the first factor.
The second factor is the nature of the copied work. Consumers who are time shifting
are copying creative work. This would tend to weigh against a ruling of fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material copied. Since a consumer copies the entire
work, this weighs against a ruling of fair use.
The final factor is the effect time shifting will have on the market for the work. The
Court determined that the studios were unable to demonstrate that time shifting had
eroded the commercial value of their copyrights. The movie studios receive large fees
from television stations in return for allowing their movies to be broadcast. Television
stations can pay these large fees to the studios because they receive income from adver-
tisers. Advertising rates depend upon the size of the audience; the larger the audience,
the more a television station can charge an advertiser to broadcast a commercial. Time
shifting allows people who would not ordinarily be able to watch a show to view it later.
Hence it can be argued that VCRs actually increase the size of the audience, and since
audience size determines the fees studios receive to have their movies broadcast on tele-
vision, it is not at all clear whether the copying of these programs harms the studios.
The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that time shifting television programs
is a fair use of the copyrighted materials [36]. It said that the private, noncommercial use
of copyrighted materials ought to be presumed fair use unless it could be shown that the
copyright holder would be likely to suffer economic harm from the consumer’s actions
(Figure 4.6). Importantly, the Court also noted that the Sony Betamax VCR could be
used to copy both copyrighted and noncopyrighted material, and that Sony should not
be held accountable if some of the people who buy a VCR choose to use it to infringe on
copyrights.
Commercial
showing
Record Hold
Watch later
Hold
Fair Use
Not Fair Use
Figure 4.6 The Supreme Court ruled that videotaping television broadcasts for private
viewing at a later time is fair use of the copyrighted material. This practice is called time
shifting. Using videotaped material for a commercial purpose is not considered fair use.
4.4 Fair Use 179
4.4.2 Digital Recording Technology
In the not-so-distant past, music publishers distributed content on vinyl records, and
some purchasers made backup copies on cassette tapes. The copying process introduced
hiss and distortions that significantly degraded the quality of the music. Trying to make
a copy from a copy resulted in a nearly worthless tape. Music publishers focused on
suing major violators of copyright law (those producing thousands of tapes) and ignored
people who made a few copies of albums for their friends [37].
Digital technologies disrupted the status quo. The first of these technologies was
the compact disc (CD). Initially the introduction of CDs was a huge boon for the music
publishing industry. The per-unit production cost of CDs was lower than vinyl albums
or tapes, but their sound quality was higher, meaning companies could charge more for
them. As a result, their profits swelled.
Someone with a digital recording device can copy a CD perfectly because it encodes
music digitally—as a stream of ones and zeros. When consumers didn’t have access to
digital recording devices, that wasn’t a problem; however, in the mid-1980s Sony began
selling digital audio tape (DAT) recorders in Japan and Europe. The Recording Industry
Association of America opposed the introduction of DAT recorders in the United States
on the grounds that giving consumers the ability to make unlimited numbers of perfect
copies would destroy the recording industry. On the other side were Sony, Phillips, and
other electronics companies that wanted to sell these devices to consumers.
4.4.3 Audio Home Recording Act of 1992
The Audio Home Recording Act represents a compromise between the desires of the
recording industry, the electronics industry, and consumers. The Act protects the right
of consumers to make copies of analog or digital recordings for personal, noncommer-
cial use. For example, a consumer may copy a recording to put in another music player,
to give to another family member, or to use as a backup.
To reduce the problem of unauthorized copying, the Audio Home Recording Act
requires manufacturers of digital audio recorders to incorporate the Serial Copyright
Management System (SCMS). The SCMS allows a consumer to make a digital copy from
the original recording, but it prevents someone from making a copy of the copy.
To compensate artists and recording companies from the loss of sales due to copy-
ing, the Audio Home Recording Act requires a royalty to be paid on the sale of all digital
audio recording devices and blank digital audio recording media. The royalties are di-
vided among songwriters, music publishers, musicians, and recording companies, based
on the popularity of their music. As it turns out, these royalty payments have never been
a significant source of income for any of these groups.
4.4.4 RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia
A compression algorithm reduces the number of bits needed to store a picture or sound.
The most popular compression algorithm for music is MP3, which was developed by a
team of European scientists. An MP3 music file is typically less than 10 percent the size
of the original file, but it is difficult to hear the difference between the original and the
180 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Your stereo
Your portable player
Backup
Original
Copy
Copy
Copy
Fair Use Not Fair Use
Your friend’s stereo
Figure 4.7 Space shifting is the creation of a copy for backup purposes or for use in a
portable device, and it is considered fair use. Making a copy for a friend is not considered
fair use.
compressed versions. The availability of MP3 encoders and decoders in the mid-1990s
helped speed the development of portable music players.
Diamond Multimedia Systems introduced the Rio MP3 portable music player in
1998. About the size of an audiocassette, the Rio stored an hour of digitized music. The
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asked for an injunction preventing
Diamond Multimedia from manufacturing and distributing the Rio. The RIAA alleged
that the Rio did not meet the requirements for the Audio Home Recording Act of
1992 because it did not employ the Serial Copyright Management System to prevent
unauthorized copying of copyrighted material.
The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, upheld the ruling of a lower court that the
Rio was not a digital audio recording device as defined by the Audio Home Recording
Act. It denied the injunction on these technical grounds. In addition, the Court affirmed
that space shifting, or copying a recording in order to make it portable, is fair use and
entirely consistent with copyright law (Figure 4.7).
4.4.5 Kelly v. Arriba Soft
Leslie Kelly was a photographer who maintained a Web site containing many of his
copyrighted photos. Arriba Soft Corporation created an Internet-based search engine
that responded to user queries by displaying thumbnail images. Arriba Soft created the
thumbnail images by copying images from other Web sites. When Kelly discovered that
the Arriba Soft search engine was displaying thumbnail images of his photographs, he
sued Arriba Soft for copyright infringement.
The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, upheld the ruling of a lower court that
Arriba Soft’s use of the images was a fair use of the work [38]. Two factors heavily favored
Arriba Soft’s claim of fair use. First, the character and purpose of Arriba Soft’s use of
4.4 Fair Use 181
the images was “significantly transformative” [38]. Kelly’s original images were artistic
creations designed to provide the viewer with an aesthetic experience. Arriba Soft’s use
of the thumbnails was to create a searchable index that would make it easier for people
to find images on the Internet. The thumbnail images had such low resolution that
enlarging them resulted in a blurry image with little aesthetic appeal. Second, Arriba
Soft’s use of Kelly’s images did not harm the value of the original images or the market
for these images. If anything, the search engine’s display of Kelly’s images “would guide
users to Kelly’s web site rather than away from it,” increasing the demand for his photo-
graphs [38].
4.4.6 Google Books
In December 2004, Google announced a plan to scan millions of books held by Harvard
University, the University of Michigan, the New York Public Library, Oxford University,
and Stanford University, creating a database containing the words contained in all of
these books [39]. This database is much more powerful than traditional library card
catalogs because it allows users to search for words or phrases appearing anywhere in
the cataloged books. The system responds to a user query by returning the books that
match the query most closely. If the book is in the public domain, the user can view and
download a PDF file containing the scanned images of the book’s pages. If the book is
still under copyright, the user can see a few sentences from the book that show the search
term in context, and the search engine provides links to libraries holding the book and
online bookstores selling the book.
In September 2005, the Authors Guild filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, claiming that “by reproducing for itself a copy of
those works that are not in the public domain, Google is engaging in massive copyright
infringement” [40]. A month later a group of five major publishers sued Google for
copyright infringement. The publishers claimed that Google was infringing their rights
under the Copyright Act because Google’s intent was “purely commercial,” and in order
to create its database, Google was systematically copying entire books still protected by
copyright [41].
Three years later Google reached an out-of-court settlement with the Authors Guild
and the Association of American Publishers. A joint public FAQ from the Authors Guild,
the Association of American Publishers, and Google stated that the agreement would
enable them “to do more together than copyright owners or Google could have done
alone or through a court ruling” [42]. According to the three parties, the settlement
would result in five important benefits:
1. Readers in the United States would have much easier access to millions of copy-
righted books, including millions of books that are out of print, by allowing readers
to search through them and preview them online.
2. The market for copyrighted books in the United States would grow by offering
Google Books users the opportunity to purchase online access to them.
3. People would gain online access to out-of-print books at designated computers in
US public libraries and university libraries.
182 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
4. US colleges and universities would have the opportunity to purchase subscriptions
that would enable their students to gain online access to the collections of some of
the world’s greatest libraries.
5. Authors and publishers would receive payments earned from the online access of
their books, fees paid when people printed pages from their books, and advertising
revenues.
As part of the settlement, Google agreed to pay $125 million to resolve legal claims
made by authors and publishers, cover their legal fees, and establish the Book Rights
Registry. By registering their works with the Book Rights Registry, copyright holders
would be able to receive payments resulting from institutional subscriptions, book sales,
and advertising revenues.
The out-of-court settlement was controversial [43]. According to some, Google
should not have made a deal with the plaintiffs. They felt Google’s use of the copyrighted
material was a fair use, based on the precedent of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, and if
Google had gone to trial and been found not guilty, the public would have been able to
access these books at lower rates. Others criticized the settlement because they thought it
gave Google a virtual monopoly over orphaned works: copyrighted books for which the
copyright owner cannot be located. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also expressed
concerns about the potential chilling effect of Google tracking the pages that people are
viewing.
In March 2011, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected
the proposed settlement. The judge ruled that the agreement “would give Google a
significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying
of copyrighted works without permission” [44]. In particular, the judge objected to
the part of the agreement that would have given Google liberal rights over orphaned
works; according to the judge, a process for making use of orphaned books should be
established by Congress, not a federal judge. Meanwhile, Google now has scanned more
than 20 million books, even though most of them are still under copyright [45].
4.5 New Restrictions on Use
CDs and DVDs store sounds and images in digital form. When information is stored dig-
itally, anyone with the right equipment can make perfect copies. China is the principal
source of counterfeit CDs and DVDs (Figure 4.8) [46].
The increase in the number of people with broadband Internet connections has
stimulated digital copying. Although a patient person with an ordinary dial-up connec-
tion to the Internet can download large files, connections that are dozens of times faster
make file sharing much more practical. As more people have gained DSL or cable access
to the Internet, the number of downloads has soared [47]. Broadband connections have
also made video sharing much more popular. As a result, the music industry has lost
sales. Total revenue from music sales and licensing in the United States dropped from
$14.6 billion in 1999 to $6.3 billion in 2009 [48].
Governments and recording companies have responded to the threat of illegal copy-
ing of copyrighted materials by introducing new legal and technological restrictions on
4.5 New Restrictions on Use 183
Figure 4.8 Counterfeit CDs are destroyed in Thailand. (© Reuters/Corbis)
copying. Sometimes that makes it impossible for consumers to make copies even for pur-
poses that are considered fair use, such as making a backup. Larry Kenswil of Universal
Music Group says, “What we really want to do is not to stop copying, simply to stop
redistributing. But the technology available doesn’t distinguish between the two” [37].
4.5.1 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by Congress in 1998, was the
first major revision of United States copyright law since 1976. The primary purpose of
the DMCA was to bring the United States into compliance with international copyright
agreements it had signed [35]. Provisions in the DMCA significantly curtail fair use of
copyrighted material. The DMCA makes it illegal for consumers to circumvent encryp-
tion schemes placed on digital media, and it is illegal to sell (or even discuss online) a
software program designed to circumvent copy controls [49].
Online service providers that misuse copyrighted materials face severe penalties
[49]. That means, for example, a university that knows students are exchanging MP3
files on the campus network and does nothing to stop them can be sued [50].
The DMCA extends the copyright protection to music broadcast over the Internet.
It requires royalty payments to be made to copyright holders of music played over the
Internet since October 1998. For example, a college Internet radio station would pay the
larger of an annual fee of $500 or $0.0002 per listener per song for every song that it
plays. Radio stations are having a hard time determining how much they owe, because
most of them have not kept track of how many online listeners they have or the number
of songs they have played [51].
184 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
4.5.2 Digital Rights Management
Digital rights management (DRM) can refer to any of a variety of actions owners of
intellectual property may take to protect their rights. As Christopher May puts it, “All
DRM technologies are aimed at tracking and controlling the use of content once it has
entered the market” [52]. DRM technologies may be incorporated into a computer’s
operating system, a program, or a piece of hardware.
One approach to DRM is to encrypt the digital content so that only authorized users
can access it. Another approach is to place a digital mark on the content so that a device
accessing the content can identify the content as copy protected.
4.5.3 Secure Digital Music Initiative
The Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) was an effort to create copy-protected CDs
and secure digital music downloads that would play only on SDMI-compliant devices.
About 200 entertainment and technology companies joined the consortium, which
worked for three years to develop “digital watermarks” that would make unauthorized
copying of audio files impossible. The SDMI was unsuccessful for three reasons. First,
before any copy protection technologies could be put in place, the number of music
files being copied on the Internet mushroomed. Second, some of the sponsors of the
SDMI—consumer electronics companies—started making a lot of money selling de-
vices that became more attractive to customers as access to free MP3 files got easier.
Their sales could be hurt by restrictions on copying. Third, the digital watermarking
scheme was cracked [53].
In September 2000, SDMI issued a “Hack SDMI” challenge. It released some dig-
itally watermarked audio files and offered a $10,000 prize to the first person to crack
them. Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten and eight colleagues picked
up the gauntlet. Three weeks later the team had successfully read the audio files. The
team declined to accept the cash prize. Instead, it wrote a paper describing how it broke
the encryption scheme. It prepared to present a paper at the Fourth Annual Informa-
tion Hiding Workshop at Carnegie Mellon University in April 2001 [54]. At this point,
the Recording Industry Association of America sent Dr. Felten a letter stating, “Any
disclosure of information gained from participating in the public challenge would be
outside the scope of activities permitted by the agreement and could subject you and
your research team to actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” [55]. Fear-
ing litigation, Dr. Felten agreed to withdraw the paper from the conference. However,
that did not prevent the information from being leaked. Even before the conference,
copies of the research paper and the letter from the RIAA were placed on a freedom-of-
speech Web site [55]. Four months later Felten’s group published the paper [56].
4.5.4 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rootkit
In the summer and fall of 2005, Sony BMG Music Entertainment shipped millions of
audio CDs with Extended Copy Protection, a DRM system. Extended Copy Protection
prevented users from ripping audio tracks into MP3 format or making more than three
backup copies of the CD. It also monitored the user’s listening habits and reported
4.5 New Restrictions on Use 185
back to Sony via the Internet. Extended Copy Protection did this by secretly installing
a rootkit on Windows computers when the CD was played for the first time. A rootkit
is a way of hiding files and processes from users; rootkits are commonly associated with
computer hackers. The installation of the rootkit also compromised the security of the
user’s computer, making it vulnerable to “Trojan horse” programs (see Chapter 7) [57].
A computer expert discovered the Sony rootkit on his computer and publicized its
existence, resulting in a huge public outcry and a class action lawsuit. Without admitting
any wrongdoing, Sony BMG agreed to the following:
. Cease production of CDs with Extended Copy Protection
. Provide financial incentives to retailers to return unsold audio CDs with Extended
Copy Protection
. Make freely available the software patch needed to uninstall the rootkit
. Allow customers to exchange CDs with Extended Copy Protection for identical CDs
with no DRM
. Give consumers $7.50 or three free album downloads for every CD with Extended
Copy Protection they exchange [58]
4.5.5 Encrypting DVDs
A DVD (digital versatile disc) is capable of storing a full-length motion picture. DVDs
are smaller than videotapes and have higher video and audio fidelity. People can view
DVDs on DVD players attached to home entertainment systems; they can also watch
DVDs on Windows and Macintosh computers equipped with DVD players.
To prevent unauthorized viewing of DVD movies, the contents of the discs are
encrypted using a scheme called the Content Scramble System (CSS), developed by
Matsushita and Toshiba. DVD players and DVD drives inside PCs and Macintoshes have
a licensed copy of CSS, including the decryption keys [59].
In 1999 16-year-old Norwegian Jon Johansen wrote a computer program called
DeCSS that decoded the CSS encryption scheme. DeCSS enabled him to view DVD
movies on a computer running the Linux operating system, which was not supported
by CSS. Johansen distributed the program to others via the Internet.
2600 Magazine published the code and provided links to it. Eight major motion
picture studios successfully sued the publisher of 2600 Magazine for violating the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act [60]. In November 2001, a federal appeals court upheld the
ruling. The appeals court ruled that while a computer code is “speech,” the code enjoys
only limited First Amendment protection because its purpose is more “functional” than
“expressive.” The court held that the publisher’s right to post the code on the Internet
was outweighed by the potential harm the program could do in the form of increasing
the illegal copying of digitally encoded motion pictures [61].
Jon Johansen was also brought to trial in Norway for creating and distributing
DeCSS, but in January 2003, an Oslo City Court acquitted Johansen. The court ruled
he had the right to access information on a DVD that he had purchased. It noted the
186 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
program Johansen developed to decrypt DVDs could be used for both legal and illegal
purposes [60].
4.5.6 Foiling HD-DVD Encryption
IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, the Walt Disney Company, and Warner
Brothers cofounded an organization that created the Advanced Access Content System
(AACS) for encrypting high-definition DVDs (HD-DVDs). The purpose of the AACS is
to prevent the unauthorized copying and viewing of HD-DVDs.
In January 2007, this 32-character AACS encryption key was posted on Digg.com,
a social news Web site:
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
In theory, consumers could use this key to play HD-DVDs on their Linux computers or
rip movies to their computer hard drives, although the post did not link to a program
that could actually do either of these things. The AACS parent organization immediately
contacted Digg, claiming the post violated its intellectual property rights and ordering
Digg to purge the key from its site. Tiny Digg, with only a few employees, deleted the
offending story and closed the account of the person who submitted it. Some other
Digg users had reproduced the story or mentioned the key in comments. Digg closed
the accounts of these users and deleted their posts, too. Digg CEO Jay Adelson explained
the company’s decision this way: “Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of the
intellectual property holders and consortiums, in order for Digg to survive, it must abide
by the law” [62].
The reaction of “diggers”—regular Digg users—to these actions was swift and un-
ambiguous. In the words of some bloggers, “an Internet riot” ensued. Thousands of
diggers reposted the key in a variety of imaginative ways and “dugg” each other’s sto-
ries. Soon every front-page story had the encryption key in its headline. At the end of
the day, the Digg administrators backed down. Digg’s founder and chief architect said,
“You’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger
company. If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying” [62].
In response to the release on the Web of this key, the AACS organization expired the
compromised key, requiring owners of HD-DVD and Blu-ray players to go online and
fetch a replacement key [63]. A month later a story revealing the new “secret” processing
key was posted on Digg [64].
4.5.7 Criticisms of Digital Rights Management
The introduction of DRM technologies has been controversial. Here are some criticisms
that have been raised against DRM.
Many experts suggest that any technological “fix” to the problem of copyright abuse
is bound to fail. As we have seen in the previous examples, all prior attempts to create
encryption or anticopying schemes have been abandoned or circumvented.
Others argue that DRM undermines the well-established principle of fair use. Under
DRM, a consumer may not be able to make a private copy of a DRM-protected work
4.5 New Restrictions on Use 187
without making an extra payment, even if he has the right to do so under traditional fair
use standards. Selena Kim writes:
In the analogue world, people go ahead and use the work if they believe themselves
entitled to do so. It is only if users are sued for infringement that they invoke the
relevant copyright exceptions as defence. In a digital world encapsulated by access
control and embedded with copy control, a potential user of a work may have to
ask for permission twice: once to access a work, and again to copy an excerpt. The
exception to copyright is not being put forward as a defence; it is put forward to
show entitlement to use the work. [65, p. 112]
DRM restrictions sometimes prevent libraries from reformatting materials to make
them more accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, DRM protections, unlike
copyrights, never expire [66].
Finally, some DRM schemes prevent people from anonymously accessing content.
Microsoft’s Windows Media Player has an embedded globally unique identifier (GUID).
The Media Player keeps track of all the content the user views. When the Media Player
contacts Microsoft’s central server to obtain titles, it can upload information about the
user’s viewing habits.
4.5.8 Online Music Stores Drop Digital Rights Management
When Apple began selling music through the iTunes Music Store in 2003, all of the songs
were protected with a DRM scheme called FairPlay. FairPlay blocked users from freely
exchanging music they had purchased by preventing songs from being played on more
than five computers or being copied onto CDs more than seven times. FairPlay had two
other “features” that were strong incentives for consumers to stick with the Apple brand:
music purchased from the iTunes store couldn’t be played on portable devices other
than the Apple iPod, and DRM-protected music purchased from other online retailers
couldn’t be played on the iPod [67].
Consumers complained about the restrictions associated with DRM, and eventu-
ally music retailers responded. In 2007 EMI announced it would begin offering all of
its songs without DRM through the iTunes Store for $1.29, 30 cents more than the pre-
vious price [68]. A year later Amazon became the first online music store to reach an
agreement with all four major labels to sell music free of DRM restrictions [69]. Apple
followed suit in 2009 with an announcement that it, too, had reached an agreement with
all the major music labels to sell music without DRM restrictions [70].
4.5.9 Microsoft Xbox One
In June 2013, Microsoft announced that it was creating a cloud-based gaming experience
to coincide with the launch of Xbox One. In the new environment people would be able
to play their games from any Xbox One without the disc being in the tray, and every
Xbox One would automatically be kept current with the latest system and application
updates [71].
Consumers soon learned about the restrictions accompanying these benefits, and
their reactions were overwhelmingly negative. Three features of the proposed licensing
188 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
arrangement were particularly controversial: a disc owner would be allowed to share a
disc only once, freedom to sell discs and buy secondhand titles was restricted, and Xbox
consoles would have to check in online every 24 hours to ensure that the authorized
software was up-to-date and that there was no unauthorized software [72]. In the midst
of the controversy, Amazon ran a Facebook poll to see which new gaming console
consumers were more interested in purchasing: the Microsoft Xbox One or the Sony
PlayStation 4. The PlayStation 4 was capturing 95 percent of the votes when Amazon
decided to shut down the poll early [73].
Microsoft did not waste time changing course. Thanking consumers for their “as-
sistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One,” Microsoft’s Don Mattrick
announced that the controversial features of the licensing agreement were being dropped
[74]. In particular, he indicated consumers would be able to play Xbox One games with-
out being connected to the Internet, the Xbox One would not need to connect to the
Internet once every 24 hours, and consumers would be free to lend, rent, or sell their
discs. This reversal also meant that people would no longer have the ability to play their
games from any Xbox One console without the disc being in the tray.
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers
On the Internet, the adjective peer-to-peer refers to a transient network allowing com-
puters running the same networking program to connect with each other and access
files stored on each other’s hard drives (Figure 4.9). Peer-to-peer networks stimulate the
Figure 4.9 Some of the computers on the Internet run the same networking program to
form a peer-to-peer network. The network supports multiple simultaneous file transfers.
The files may contain digitized music, images, computer software, or other content.
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers 189
exchange of data in three ways. First, they give each user access to data stored in many
other computers. Second, they support simultaneous file transfers among arbitrary pairs
of computers. Third, they allow users to identify those systems that will be able to deliver
the desired data more rapidly, perhaps because they have a faster Internet connection or
are fewer routing hops away.
Cyberlockers (also called file-hosting services or cloud storage services) are
Internet-based file-sharing services that allow users to upload password-protected files.
Users can give other people access to the files they have uploaded by sharing passwords.
People who wish to collaborate on a project often find sharing large files through cy-
berlockers more convenient than sending them back and forth as attachments to email
messages. However, cyberlockers also make it easy for people to share copyrighted ma-
terial, such as songs and movies. In addition, cyberlocker use is much more difficult for
government officials to track than peer-to-peer file sharing.
4.6.1 Napster
Napster, which began operation in 1999, was a peer-to-peer network that facilitated
the exchange of music files. In December 1999, the RIAA sued Napster for copyright
infringement, asking for damages of $100,000 each time a Napster user copied a copy-
righted song. In June 2000, the RIAA asked for a preliminary injunction to block Napster
from trading any copyrighted content from major record labels. In February 2001, a fed-
eral appeals court ruled that Napster must stop its users from trading copyrighted mate-
rial. Napster put in place file-filtering software that was 99 percent effective in blocking
the transfer of copyrighted material. In June 2001, a district court judge ruled that unless
Napster could block 100 percent of attempted transfers of copyrighted material, it must
disable file transfers. This court order effectively killed Napster, which went offline in
July 2001 and officially shut down in September 2002 [75, 76, 77]. (The following year
Napster reemerged as an online subscription music service and music store.)
4.6.2 FastTrack
FastTrack is a second-generation peer-to-peer network technology developed by Scan-
dinavians Niklas Zenniström and Janus Friis. Because of its decentralized design, a Fast-
Track network may be more difficult to shut down than Napster [78, 79].
Figure 4.10 illustrates the differences between the Napster and FastTrack implemen-
tations of peer-to-peer file sharing. Napster relied upon a central computer to maintain
a global index of all files available for sharing. The existence of this central index made
it easy to eliminate the distribution of copyrighted files via Napster.
In contrast, FastTrack distributes the index of available files among a large number
of “supernodes.” Any computer with a high-speed Internet connection running Fast-
Track has the potential to become a supernode. The use of multiple supernodes makes
searching for content slower, but it also makes it much more difficult for legal author-
ities to shut down the file-sharing network. Former peer-to-peer networks Kazaa and
Grokster used the FastTrack technology [80].
190 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
3
2
2
3
1
1
(a) (b)
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
Figure 4.10 Comparison of the Napster and FastTrack implementations of peer-to-peer file
sharing. (a) In Napster, a central server maintains the index of all files available for sharing.
Retrieving a file is a three-step process: (1) making the request to the central server, (2)
establishing a peer-to-peer connection between the sending and receiving computers, and
(3) transferring the file. (b) In FastTrack, the index of available files is distributed among
many “supernodes.” Each supernode has information about files available for sharing on
“nearby” computers. Different users connect with different supernodes.
4.6.3 BitTorrent
For a computer with a broadband connection to the Internet, downloading a file from
the network is about ten times faster than uploading a file to the network. A problem
with FastTrack and other peer-to-peer networking protocols is that when one peer com-
puter shares a file with another peer computer, the file is transferred at the slower, upload
speed rather than the faster, download speed. To solve this problem, Bram Cohen devel-
oped BitTorrent [81].
BitTorrent divides a file into pieces about a quarter megabyte in length. Different
pieces of a file can be downloaded simultaneously from different computers, avoiding
the uploading bottleneck (Figure 4.11). As soon as a user has a piece of a file, the user
can share this piece with other users. Since BitTorrent gives a priority for downloads to
those users who allow uploading from their machines, users tend to be generous. As a
result, downloading speeds increase as more peers get a copy of the file. Put another way,
downloading speeds increase with the popularity of a title.
With its markedly higher downloading rates, BitTorrent has made practical the
exchange of files hundreds of megabytes long. People are using BitTorrent to down-
load copies of computer programs, television shows, and movies. Linspire, a Linux
operating system developer, reduces demand on its servers (and saves money) by us-
ing BitTorrent to distribute its software [82]. BitTorrent was also the vehicle by which
Revenge of the Sith became available on the Internet before it appeared in movie the-
aters [83].
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers 191
Internet
Slow Fast
(a) (b)
4
1
3
2
Internet
Figure 4.11 (a) Broadband Internet connections provide higher speeds for downloading
than for uploading. (b) BitTorrent reduces downloading times by enabling a computer to
download different pieces of a file simultaneously from many different peers.
4.6.4 RIAA Lawsuits
In April 2003, the RIAA warned Grokster and Kazaa users that they could face legal
penalties for swapping files containing copyrighted music. The message read, in part:
It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your com-
puter . . . . When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way
to avoid that risk: DON’T STEAL MUSIC, either by offering it to others to copy or
downloading it on a ‘file-sharing’ system like this. When you offer music on these
systems, you are not anonymous and you can easily be identified. [84]
The RIAA identified the IP addresses of the most active Kazaa supernodes, leading
it to the ISPs of users who have stored large numbers of copyrighted files on their com-
puters. Under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the RIAA subpoenaed
Verizon, asking it to identify the names of customers suspected of running these Kazaa
supernodes. Verizon resisted responding to the subpoenas, claiming that responding to
the subpoenas would violate the privacy of its customers. In June 2003, a judge in Wash-
ington, DC, ruled that Verizon had to release the names of these customers [85].
In September 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals for distributing copyrighted
music over the Internet [86]. A month later the RIAA sent letters to 204 people who
had downloaded at least 1,000 music files, giving them an opportunity to settle before
being sued by the RIAA [87].
In December 2003, the RIAA suffered a setback when the US Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Verizon did not have to respond to the sub-
poenas of the RIAA and identify its customers [88]. Still, there is some evidence the
RIAA lawsuits reduced illegal file swapping across the Internet. A survey from ComScore
reported activity on Kazaa declined by 15 percent between November 2002 and Novem-
ber 2003 [89]. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that the percentage of
192 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Internet users who say they download music dropped from 32 percent in October 2002
to 22 percent in January 2005, and more than half of the January 2005 downloaders said
that they purchased their music from an online service, such as iTunes. However, the
report cautioned that because of the stigma associated with illegal downloading, fewer
people may be willing to admit they do it. Interestingly, about half of music downloaders
said they have gotten music from email, instant messages, or someone else’s MP3 player
or iPod [90].
The RIAA’s campaign to impose severe penalties on file sharers has been successful
in the courtroom, but huge jury judgments against file sharers have been overruled by
judges. In June 2009, a federal jury in Minnesota ordered Jammie Thomas-Rassert, a sin-
gle mother of four, to pay $1.92 million—$80,000 a song—for violating the copyrights
of 24 songs [91]. (The RIAA accused her of making 1,700 songs available on Kazaa, but
they only tried to prove 24 copyright infringements.) In July 2011, Judge Michael Davis
reduced the damage award against Thomas-Rassett to $54,000. Judge Davis called the
original award “appalling,” and said it was “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly
disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable” [92].
Another verdict went the RIAA’s way in July 2009. The RIAA had accused Joel
Tenenbaum of copyright infringement for using Kazaa to share 31 music files. The
jury awarded the music companies $675,000, or $22,500 per song [5]. In July 2010,
Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the jury’s award to $67,500. In her ruling, Judge Gert-
ner wrote: “There is substantial evidence indicating that Congress did not contemplate
that the Copyright Act’s broad statutory damages provision would be applied to col-
lege students like Tenenbaum who file-shared without any pecuniary gain. . . . There is
no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh. It not only adequately
compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that Tenenbaum caused them;
it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully
download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial dam-
ages awards” [6].
During these trials the RIAA did not prove that people had actually downloaded
songs from the defendants’ computers. Instead, they contended that simply making the
music files available to others was a violation of copyright law. In other words, making it
possible for someone to download a music file from you means you’ve violated copyright
law, even if no one ever does it. In April 2008, a federal court judge in New York agreed
with the position of the RIAA, but judges in Massachusetts and Arizona reached the
opposite conclusion, holding that simply making music files available for copying is not
copyright infringement [93, 94, 95].
4.6.5 MGM v. Grokster
A group of movie studios, recording companies, music publishers, and songwriters sued
Grokster and StreamCast for the copyright infringements of their users. The plaintiffs
(henceforth referred to as MGM) sought damages and an injunction against the de-
fendants.
During the discovery phase of the litigation, the following facts were revealed:
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers 193
. The defendants’ networks were used to transfer billions of files every month.
. About 90 percent of the files available on Grokster’s FastTrack network were copy-
righted.
. Grokster and StreamCast promoted their networks to investors and potential cus-
tomers as replacements for Napster.
. An internal StreamCast document revealed that StreamCast’s executives wanted
to have more copyrighted songs available on their network than on competing
networks.
. Grokster sent its users a newsletter touting its ability to deliver popular copyrighted
songs.
. Grokster and StreamCast provided technical support to users who were having
difficulty locating or playing copyrighted content.
A US District Court granted Grokster and StreamCast a summary judgment; that is,
it made its decision without a trial based on the facts and evidence collected. According
to the judge, “The defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can
and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends. Grokster and StreamCast
are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy
machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights” [96]. The judge
referred to Sony v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling on the legality
of Sony’s Betamax VCR. MGM appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which upheld the ruling.
After another appeal, the US Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision
of the lower courts in June 2005. Justice Souter wrote: “The question is under what
circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is
liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the software. We hold that
one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright,
as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is
liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties” [97].
The Supreme Court made clear it was not reversing the Sony Betamax decision.
Instead, it ruled that the “safe harbor” provided to Sony did not apply to Grokster and
StreamCast. The Sony Betamax VCR was primarily used for time-shifting television
shows, which the Court found to be a fair use. There was no evidence Sony had done
anything to increase sales of its VCRs by promoting illegal uses. Therefore, Sony could
not be found liable simply for selling VCRs.
The situation for Grokster and StreamCast was quite different. Both companies gave
away their software but made money by streaming advertisements to users. Advertising
rates are higher when the number of users is greater. Hence both companies wanted to
increase their user base. They realized the way to do this was to make sure their net-
works had the content people were interested in downloading. The opinion notes dryly,
“Users seeking Top 40 songs, for example, or the latest release by Modest Mouse, are cer-
tain to be far more numerous than those seeking a free Decameron, and Grokster and
194 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
StreamCast translated that demand into dollars. . . . The unlawful objective is unmis-
takable” [97].
According to the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when
it cited Sony v. Universal City Studios. The more relevant precedent was Gershwin Pub-
lishing Corporation v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc. The Supreme Court remanded
the case to the Court of Appeals, suggesting that a summary judgment in favor of MGM
would be in order. Grokster shut down its peer-to-peer network in November 2005 and
paid $50 million to “movie studios, record labels and music publishers” [98].
4.6.6 Legal Action against the Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay, based in Stockholm, Sweden, is one of the biggest file-sharing Web sites
in the world, with an estimated 25 million users [99]. People use the Pirate Bay to search
for songs, movies, TV shows, or computer programs they can download for free. These
items of intellectual property are broken into BitTorrent fragments stored in thousands
of different computers scattered across the globe. Established in 2003, the Pirate Bay has
been called “the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright—or
pro-piracy—movement” [100].
The movie industry pressured the Swedish government to do something about the
Pirate Bay, and in 2006 Swedish police raided its offices and confiscated 186 servers, but
the site was offline for only three days [100, 101]. After the site was reactivated, the num-
ber of people accessing it increased significantly, perhaps because of the international
publicity the Pirate Bay received as a result of the raid [100].
In 2008 the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry sued four indi-
viduals connected with the Pirate Bay for making available 33 copyrighted works: twenty
songs, nine films, and four computer games [99]. The defendants argued that the Pirate
Bay is simply a search engine and does not host any copyrighted content [102]. In April
2009, a District Court in Stockholm found Carl Lundström, Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde,
and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement. All
four were sentenced to one year in prison, and altogether were fined 30 million Swedish
kronor (about $3.6 million). In November 2010, an appeals court in Sweden upheld the
convictions but shortened the sentences and increased the fine to 46 million kronor ($6.5
million) [103].
Meanwhile, the Pirate Bay Web site is still operational and enormously popular.
Originally it had the domain name thepiratebay.org. Fearing that their .org domain
would be seized by American officials, the site moved to the Swedish domain .se in 2012.
When Sweden sought the seizure of the domain name thepiratebay.se in 2013, the Pirate
Bay moved to thepiratebay.sx, registered in the tiny Caribbean country of Sint Maarten
[104].
In many countries the Pirate Bay’s official URL is blocked by Internet service
providers. People in these countries are still able to access the Pirate Bay by connect-
ing to one of more than 150 proxy sites hosted in countries that do not block access to
the Pirate Bay.
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers 195
4.6.7 PRO-IP Act
In 2008 the US Congress passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellec-
tual Property (PRO-IP) Act. The PRO-IP Act gives federal law enforcement agencies the
authority to seize the domain names of Web sites that are allegedly facilitating copyright
infringement or trafficking in counterfeit goods.
In June 2010, the US Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
launched Operation In Our Sites, seizing the domain names of 10 Web sites that were
making available first-run movies, “often within hours of their theatrical release” [105].
Over the next year and a half, several hundred more domain names were seized, includng
sites that were streaming live broadcasts of the National Football League, the National
Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment,
and the Ultimate Fighting Championship [106].
4.6.8 Megaupload Shutdown
Megaupload Limited, based in Hong Kong, was a prominent cyberlocker. It had more
than 180 million registered users, and at one point it was the world’s 13th most popular
Web site, accounting for “approximately four percent of the total traffic on the Internet”
[107]. A substantial percentage of the network traffic to and from the cyberlocker was
associated with the sharing of copyrighted movies, television programs, songs, and
computer games. The founder of Megaupload, Kim Dotcom, lived in Auckland, New
Zealand.
In January 2012, the FBI worked with police in New Zealand and Hong Kong to shut
down the Megaupload cyberlocker and arrest Kim Dotcom and three associates for vio-
lating the Pro-IP Act [108]. According to the grand jury indictment, Kim Dotcom and
his codefendants were part of “a worldwide criminal organization whose members en-
gaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale with
estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and reported income
in excess of $175,000,000” [107]. The indictment claimed that the defendants had paid
millions of dollars to its premium subscribers for uploading popular copyrighted works
to the cyberlocker, as a way of increasing the number of paid subscribers.
Other cyberlockers responded quickly to the news. A few days after the shutdown of
Megaupload, FileSonic posted the following announcement on its Web site: “All sharing
functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload
and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally” [109]. The FileServe site posted
a similar message [110].
4.6.9 Legal Music Services on the Internet
Subscription music-streaming services, such as Napster, Rhapsody, and Spotify, are an
alternative to illegal file swapping. These services charge a monthly fee for legal access
to millions of songs. Depending upon the plan, subscribers may or may not pay extra to
download songs. However, a common feature with subscription services is that they all
have a form of digital rights management: subscribers who drop their subscription lose
the ability to play the songs they’ve downloaded.
196 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Another model is the online music store, in which you pay to download music
without digital rights management. Three leading online music stores are Amazon MP3,
eMusic, and Apple’s iTunes Store. The iTunes Store is easily the biggest player in the legal
online music business. In 2008 the iTunes Store surpassed Wal-Mart to become the top
music retailer in the United States, with over 50 million customers, a catalog of more
than 6 million songs, and cumulative sales of more than 4 billion songs [111]. Digital
music sales continue to climb, and in 2011 accounted for more than half of all music
purchases for the first time [112].
4.7 Protections for Software
The two primary sources for the information in this section are the BitLaw Web site
(www.bitlaw.com), created by Daniel A. Tysver of the law firm Beck & Tysver, and Legal
Protection of Digital Information by Lee Hollaar [113].
In the early days of the computer industry, there was no strong demand for intel-
lectual property protection for software. Most commercial software was produced by the
same companies manufacturing computer hardware. They sold complete systems to cus-
tomers, and the licensing agreements covered use of the software as well as the hardware.
Interest in copyrighting software grew with the emergence of an independent software
industry in the 1960s.
4.7.1 Software Copyrights
The first software copyrights were applied for in 1964. The Copyright Office allowed the
submitted computer programs to be registered, reasoning that a computer program is
like a “how-to” book. The Copyright Act of 1976 explicitly recognizes that software can
be copyrighted.
When a piece of software gets copyright protection, what exactly is copyrighted?
First, copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. For example,
suppose you develop a program for a relational database management system. You may
be able to copyright your implementation of a relational database management system,
but you cannot copyright the concept of using relational databases to store information.
Second, copyright usually protects the object (executable) program, not the source
program. Typically, the source code to a program is confidential; in other words, a
trade secret of the enterprise that developed it. The company only distributes the object
program to its customers. The copyright also protects the screen displays produced
by the program as it executes. This is particularly valuable for the developers of video
games.
4.7.2 Violations of Software Copyrights
The holder of a copyright has a right to control the distribution of the copyrighted
material. Obviously, this includes making copies of the program. The definition of what
it means to make a copy of a program is broad. Suppose you purchase a program stored
on a CD. If you transfer a copy of the program from the CD to a hard disk, you are
www.bitlaw.com
4.7 Protections for Software 197
making a copy of it. If you execute the program, it is copied from the hard disk of the
computer into its random access memory (RAM). This, too, is considered making a copy
of the program. The standard licensing agreement that comes with a piece of commercial
software allows the purchaser of the product to do both of the above-mentioned copying
operations.
However, doing any of the following actions without authorization of the copyright
holder is a violation of copyright law:
1. Copying a program onto a CD to give or sell to someone else
2. Preloading a program onto the hard disk of a computer being sold
3. Distributing a program over the Internet
Another kind of copyright violation can occur when a company attempts to create
software that competes with an existing product. Two court cases illustrate a copyright
infringement and fair use of another company’s product.
APPLE COMPUTER v. FRANKLIN COMPUTER
In the early 1980s, Franklin Computer Corp. manufactured the Franklin ACE to com-
pete with the Apple II. The Franklin ACE was Apple II compatible, meaning that pro-
grams sold for the Apple II would run on the Franklin ACE without modification. In
order to ensure compatibility, the Franklin ACE contained operating systems functions
directly copied from a ROM on the Apple II. Apple Computer sued Franklin for infring-
ing on its copyright. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of
Apple Computer, establishing that object programs are copyrightable.
SEGA v. ACCOLADE
Video-game maker Accolade wanted to port some of its games to the Sega Genesis
console. Sega did not make available a technical specification for the Genesis console,
so Accolade disassembled the object code of a Sega game in order to determine how
to interface a video game with the game console. Sega sued Accolade for infringing on
its copyright. In 1992 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of
Accolade, judging that Accolade’s actions constituted fair use of the software. It noted
that Accolade had no other way of discerning the hardware interface and that the public
would benefit from additional video games being available on the Genesis console.
4.7.3 Safe Software Development
An organization must be careful not to violate the copyrights held by its competitors.
Even unconscious copying can have serious consequences. Years after hearing the song
“He’s So Fine,” George Harrison wrote “My Sweet Lord.” The owner of “He’s So Fine”
sued Harrison for copyright infringement and prevailed after a lengthy legal battle.
Unconscious copying is a real concern in the software industry because programmers
frequently move from one firm to another.
Suppose a company needs to develop a software product that duplicates the func-
tionality of a competitor’s product without violating the competitor’s copyright. For
198 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
example, in the 1980s companies developing IBM-compatible computers needed to de-
velop their own implementations of the BIOS (basic input/output system). A “clean
room” software development strategy helps ensure a company’s software program does
not duplicate any code in another company’s product.
In this strategy two independent teams work on the project. The first team is respon-
sible for determining how the competitor’s program works. It may access the program’s
source code, if it is available. If it cannot get access to the source, it may disassemble the
object code of the competitor’s product. It also reads the product’s user manuals and
technical documentation. The first team produces a technical specification for the soft-
ware product. The specification simply states how the product is supposed to function.
It says nothing about how to implement the functionality.
The second team is isolated from the first team. Members of this team have never
seen any code or documentation from the competitor’s product. They rely solely on
the technical specification to develop, code, and debug the software meeting the spec-
ification. By isolating the code developers from the competitor’s product, the company
developing the competing product can demonstrate that its employees have not copied
code, even unconsciously.
4.7.4 Software Patents
Until the early 1980s, the US Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant patents
for computer software. Its position was that a computer program is a mathematical
algorithm, not a process or a machine.
However, a US Supreme Court decision in 1981 forced the Patent and Trademark
Office to begin considering software patents. In the case of Diamond v. Diehr, the
Supreme Court ruled that an invention related to curing rubber could be patented. Even
though the company’s principal innovation was the use of a computer to control the
heating of the rubber, the invention was a new process for rubber molding, and hence
patentable.
Further court rulings compelled the Patent and Trademark Office to begin issuing
patents for a much broader range of software. In 1992 the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit considered a patent application from a company that had developed a
computerized monitoring device that analyzed signals from an electrocardiograph to
determine whether a heart attack victim was at risk of a dangerous arrhythmia. The
court ruled that the software was patentable because the numbers being manipulated
by the computer program represented concrete values in the real world. Further court
rulings reinforced the idea that computer software and data structures could be patented
in the United States [114].
Since then, hundreds of thousands of software patents have been granted [115]. Mi-
crosoft alone files about 3,000 patent applications every year [116]. Companies generate
revenue by licensing their software patents to other companies. It’s also common for sev-
eral technology companies to hold patents that cover different but essential components
of a commercial product. By signing an agreement to cross-license each other’s patents,
all of the companies are free to bring their own versions of the product to market.
4.7 Protections for Software 199
Given the value of software patents, it’s not surprising that a secondary market
for them has arisen. For example, when a company holding patents goes bankrupt,
its patents are sold to another company [117]. Some companies specialize in holding
patents and licensing the rights to use these patents. Patent-holding companies aggres-
sively use the courts to enforce their patent rights; these companies are sometimes re-
ferred to as patent trolls. Because defending against a patent infringement lawsuit can
easily exceed a million dollars, companies that get sued have a strong motivation to sim-
ply settle out of court, putting patent trolls “in a position to negotiate licensing fees that
are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or
services” [118].
In 1992 inventor Thomas Campana and lawyer Donald Stout formed New Tech-
nologies Products (NTP), a patent-holding company. The purpose of the company was
never to make anything but to protect valuable intellectual property. About half of the
company’s 50 patents were originally held by Telefind Corporation, which went out of
business. In 2000 NTP sent letters to several companies, warning them that they were in-
fringing on NTP wireless email patents and inviting them to negotiate licensing rights.
One of these letters went to Research In Motion (RIM), maker of the BlackBerry, but
RIM did not respond to the letter. The next year NTP sued RIM for patent infringe-
ment. Instead of settling out of court for a few million dollars, RIM took the case to trial
and lost. After more unsuccessful legal maneuvering, RIM in 2006 agreed to pay NTP
$612.5 million to settle the patent infringement dispute [119, 120].
Critics of software patents argue that too many software patents have been granted.
A problem faced by patent examiners in the Patent and Trademark Office is knowing
what the existing technical knowledge (prior art) in computer programming is. Patent
examiners typically look at patents already issued to determine prior art. This works
fine for other kinds of inventions, but it doesn’t work well for software patents because
a significant amount of software was written before software patents were first granted.
The consequence is that patent examiners issue many “bad patents”—patents that would
not have been issued if the examiner knew about all of the prior art. The Patent Office
has also been criticized for granting patents for trivial inventions that would be obvious
to any skilled computer programmer.
As a consequence of the extremely large number of software patents, the large num-
ber of bad patents, and the number of obvious software inventions that are patented, any
company releasing a new product that includes software runs a significant risk of being
sued for infringing a software patent owned by someone else. Thousands of patent law-
suits are filed in the United States every year [121]. Large corporations are resorting to
building stockpiles of their own patents, so that if they are sued for infringing another
company’s patent, they can retaliate with their own patent infringement countersuit.
The use of software patents as legal weapons is a perversion of their original purpose
[122].
Some opponents of the current software patent system maintain that patent pro-
tection is inappropriate for software, which is less expensive to produce and has a much
shorter useful life than other patentable properties, such as new pharmaceutical drugs.
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, has suggested that software patents should have a life
span of only three to five years [123].
200 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Software Copyright Software Patent
What is protected? Object program, Software process with
screen displays practical utility
Is getting protection expensive? No Yes
Is getting protection time consuming? No Yes
Is reverse engineering allowed? Yes No
Table 4.2 Both copyrights and patents have been used to provide intellectual property
protection to software. This table outlines the key differences between the two protection
systems.
Table 4.2 outlines the key differences between using copyrights and patents to pro-
tect software.
4.8 Open-Source Software
In the early years of commercial computing, there was no independent software indus-
try. Computer manufacturers such as IBM produced both the hardware and the software
needed for the system to be usable. Well into the 1960s, software distributions included
the source code. Customers who wanted to fix bugs in the programs or add new features
could do so by modifying the source code and generating a new executable version of
the program.
In the 1970s the number of computer applications expanded, and organizations
recognized the increasing value of software. To protect their investments in software
development, most companies decided to make their programs proprietary (owned).
Today companies developing proprietary software tightly control the distribution
of their intellectual property. Typically they do this by treating source code as a trade
secret and distributing only the object code, which is not in human-readable form. In
addition, they do not sell the object code. Instead, when people “purchase” the program,
what they are actually buying is a license allowing them to run the program. Their rights
to do other things with the code, such as make backup copies, are limited.
4.8.1 Consequences of Proprietary Software
Governments have given ownership rights to those who produce computer software
because of the perceived beneficial consequences. A key benefit is the ability to profit
from the licensing of the software. The assumption is that people will work harder and
be more creative if they must compete with others to produce the best product. Those
who produce the best products will have the opportunity to make money from them.
While most people point to the benefits of a system encouraging the development
of proprietary software, some people have noted the harms caused by such a system. A
well-known critic of proprietary software is Richard Stallman. According to Stallman,
4.8 Open-Source Software 201
granting intellectual property rights to creators of computer software has numerous
harmful consequences:
. The copyright system was designed for an era in which it was difficult to create
copies. Digital technology has made copying trivial. In order to enforce copyrights
in the digital age, increasingly harsh measures are being taken. These measures
infringe on our liberties.
. The purpose of the copyright system is to promote progress, not to make authors
wealthy. Copyrights are not promoting progress in the computer software field.
. It is wrong to allow someone to “own” a piece of intellectual property. Granting
someone this ownership forces the users of a piece of intellectual property to choose
between respecting ownership rights and helping their friends. When this happens,
the correct action is clear. If a friend asks you for a copy of a proprietary program,
you would be wrong to refuse your friend. “Cooperation is more important than
copyright” [124].
The open-source movement is the philosophical position that source code to soft-
ware ought to be freely distributed and that people should be encouraged to examine
and improve each other’s code. The open-source software movement promotes a coop-
erative model of software development.
4.8.2 “Open Source” Definition
Open source is an alternative way of distributing software. Licenses for open-source
programs have the following key characteristics (there are others) [125]:
1. There are no restrictions preventing others from selling or giving away the software.
2. The source code to the program must be included in the distribution or easily
available by other means (such as downloadable from the Internet).
3. There are no restrictions preventing people from modifying the source code, and
derived works can be distributed according to the same license terms as the original
program.
4. There are no restrictions regarding how people can use the software.
5. These rights apply to everyone receiving redistributions of the software without the
need for additional licensing agreements.
6. The license cannot put restrictions on other software that is part of the same dis-
tribution. For example, a program’s open-source license cannot require all of the
other programs on the CD to be open source.
Note that there is nothing in these guidelines that says an open-source program
must be given away for free. While people may freely exchange open-source programs, a
company has the right to sell an open-source program. However, a company cannot stop
others from selling it either. In order for a company to be successful selling open-source
software that people can find for free on the Internet, it must add some additional value
to the software. Perhaps it packages the software so that it is particularly easy to install.
It may provide great manuals, or it may provide support after the sale.
202 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
The Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) is a nonprofit corporation that
promotes a common definition of open source. In August 2013, its Web site listed the
names of 70 software licenses that met its definition of open source.
4.8.3 Beneficial Consequences of Open-Source Software
Advocates of open-source software describe five beneficial consequences of open-source
licensing.
The first benefit of open source is that it gives everyone using a program the oppor-
tunity to improve it. People can fix bugs, add enhancements, or adapt the program for
entirely new uses. Software evolves more quickly when more people are working on it.
Rapid evolution of open-source software leads to the second benefit: new versions of
open-source programs appear much more frequently than new versions of commercial
programs. Users of open-source programs do not have to wait as long for bug fixes and
patches [126].
A third benefit of open source is that it eliminates the tension between obeying
copyright law and helping others. Suppose you legally purchased a traditional license
to use a program and your friend asks you for a copy. You must choose between helping
your friend and conforming to the license agreement. If the program had an open-source
license, you would be free to distribute copies of it to anyone who wanted it.
The fourth benefit is that open-source programs are the property of the entire
user community, not just a single vendor. If a vendor selling a proprietary program
decides not to invest in further improvements to it, the user community is stuck. In
contrast, a user community with access to the source code to a program may continue
its development indefinitely [126].
The fifth benefit of open source is that it shifts the focus from manufacturing to
service, which can result in customers getting better support for their software [126].
If source code were distributed freely, companies would make money by providing
support, and the companies that provided the best support would be rewarded in the
marketplace [127].
4.8.4 Examples of Open-Source Software
Open-source software is a key part of the Internet’s infrastructure, and an increasing
number of open-source applications are reaching the desktop. Here are a few examples
of highly successful programs distributed under open-source licenses:
. BIND provides DNS (domain name service) for the entire Internet.
. Apache runs about half of the world’s Web servers.
. The most widely used program for moving email about the Internet is the open-
source program sendmail.
. The Android operating system is the world’s best-selling smartphone platform
[128].
. Firefox and Chrome are the world’s second and third most popular Web browsers,
respectively [129].
www.opensource.org
4.8 Open-Source Software 203
Figure 4.12 OpenOffice.org is an open-source office application suite that competes
with the commercial product Microsoft Office. (Screenshot from OpenOffice.org, a registered
trademark of Apache Software Foundation. Copyright © 2012 by Apache Software Foundation.
Reprinted with permission.)
. OpenOffice.org is an office application suite supporting word processing, spread-
sheets, databases, and presentations (Figure 4.12).
. Perl is the most popular Web programming language.
. Other popular open-source programming languages and tools are Python, Ruby,
TCL/TK, PHP, and Zope.
. Programmers have long recognized the high quality of the GNU compilers for C,
C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada.
Surveys indicate that the quality and dependability of open-source software is about the
same as the quality of commercial software [130].
4.8.5 The GNU Project and Linux
The GNU Project and Linux are important success stories in the history of the open-
source movement. (GNU is pronounced “guh-new” with the accent on the second sylla-
ble. It’s a tradition among hackers to invent recursive acronyms; GNU stands for “GNU’s
Not Unix.”) Richard Stallman began the GNU Project in 1984. The goal of the project
was ambitious: to develop a complete Unix-like operating system consisting entirely of
open-source software.
204 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
In order to be fully functional, a modern operating system must include text editors,
command processors, assemblers, compilers, debuggers, device drivers, mail servers,
and many other programs. During the late 1980s, Stallman and others developed most of
the necessary components. The GNU Project also benefited from open-source software
previously developed by others, notably Donald Knuth’s TEX typesetting system (used
to typeset this book) and MIT’s X Window System. Most of the software developed as
part of the GNU Project is distributed under the GNU Public License, an example of
an open-source license. (For technical reasons some programs have been distributed as
open-source software under other licenses.)
In 1991 Linus Torvalds began work on a Unix-like kernel he named Linux. (The
kernel is the software at the very heart of an operating system.) He released version 1.0 of
the kernel in 1994. Because the other major components of a Unix-like operating system
had already been created through the GNU Project, Torvalds was able to combine all of
the software into a complete, open-source, Unix-like operating system. To the obvious
chagrin of Stallman, Linux has become the commonly accepted name for the open-
source operating system based on the Linux kernel. (Stallman urges people to refer to
the entire system as GNU/Linux [131].)
4.8.6 Impact of Open-Source Software
In 1998 Andrew Leonard summarized the impact of Linux this way: “Linux is subversive.
Who could have thought even five years ago that a world-class operating system could
coalesce as if by magic out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers scattered
all over the planet, connected only by the tenuous strands of the Internet?” [127].
Linux has become a viable alternative to proprietary versions of Unix. Many com-
panies adopted Linux as a way to cut costs during the recession of 2008–2009 [132]. A
survey conducted in June 2013 revealed that 95 percent of the world’s 500 fastest super-
computers were running the Linux operating system [133].
4.8.7 Critique of the Open-Source Software Movement
The open-source movement has many detractors. They have raised the following criti-
cisms of the open-source model of software development.
First, if a particular open-source project does not attract a critical mass of develop-
ers, the overall quality of the software can be poor [126].
Second, without an “owner,” there is always the possibility that different groups of
users will independently make enhancements to a software product that are incompat-
ible with each other. The source code to a single program may fork into a multitude
of irreconcilable versions. (In reality, this possibility hasn’t materialized. Code forking
would fragment the developer community, which is bad for everyone. Hence there are
incentives to keep a single version of the source code. About 99 percent of Linux distri-
butions have the same source code [126].)
Third, open-source software as a whole tends to have a relatively weak graphical
user interface, making it harder to use than commercial software products. This is one
4.9 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection for Software 205
explanation why to this point open-source systems have made greater inroads as servers
than as desktop systems [126].
Fourth, open source is a poor mechanism for stimulating innovation. Currently,
corporations invest billions of dollars developing new software products. By removing
the financial reward for creating new software, companies would sharply curtail or
even eliminate research and development. They would no longer be a fountain of new
programs. The open-source movement has proven it is able to produce alternatives to
proprietary programs (for example, StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office), but it has
not demonstrated its ability to innovate completely new products.
4.9 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection
for Software
Licenses for proprietary software usually forbid you from making copies of the software
to give or sell to someone else. These licenses are legal agreements. If you violate the
license, you are breaking the law. In this section we are not discussing the morality
of breaking the law. Rather, we are considering whether as a society we ought to give
the producers of software the right to prevent others from copying the software they
produce. In other words, should we give copyright and/or patent protection to software?
Rights-based and consequentialist arguments have been given for granting intellec-
tual property protection to those who create software. Let’s review and test the strength
of these arguments. To simplify the discussion, we’ll assume that a piece of software is
written by a person. In reality, most software is created by teams, and the company em-
ploying the team owns the rights to the software the team produces. However, the logic
is the same whether the software creator is an individual or a corporation.
4.9.1 Rights-Based Analysis
Not everyone can write good computer programs, and programming is hard work. Pro-
grammers who write useful programs that are widely used by others should be rewarded
for their labor. That means they should own the programs they write. Ownership im-
plies control. If somebody creates a piece of software, he or she has the right to decide
who gets to use it. Software owners ought to be able to charge others for using their
programs. Everybody ought to respect these intellectual property rights.
This line of reasoning is a variation of Locke’s natural rights argument we discussed
at the beginning of the chapter. It is based on the Lockean notion that mixing your labor
with something gives you an ownership right in it.
Here are two criticisms of the “just deserts”1 argument. First, why does mixing your
labor with something mean that you own it? Doesn’t it make just as much sense to
believe that if you mix your labor with something you lose your labor? Robert Nozick
gives this example: If you own a can of tomato juice and pour it in the ocean, mixing the
1. Pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. Think of the related word “deserve.”
206 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Copying software
results in reduced
software sales.
A decline in the
software industry
will result in
fewer products.
Software copying
is wrong.
Reduced software
sales result in
a decline in
the software
industry.
Fewer software
products means
fewer benefits
for society.
Figure 4.13 The chain of reasoning of a consequentialist argument for why copying
software is bad. (Beth Anderson)
tomato juice with the salt water, you do not own the ocean. Instead, you have lost your
can of tomato juice. Certainly it would be unjust if someone else could claim ownership
of something you labored to produce, but if there were no notion of property ownership
and everybody understood when they mixed their labor with something they lost their
labor, it would be just.
Of course, we do live in a society that has the notion of ownership of tangible
property. How can we justify giving a farmer the right to the crop he labors to produce
while failing to give a programmer the right to the accounting program he produces for
the benefit of the farmer?
Still, if we do want to give ownership rights to those who produce intellectual
property, we run into the problems we discussed at the beginning of the chapter. The
second criticism of the “just deserts” argument is that Locke’s natural rights argument
does not hold up well when extended to the realm of intellectual property. There are
two crucial differences between intellectual property and tangible property. Each piece
of intellectual property is unique, and copying intellectual property is different from
stealing something physical.
4.9.2 Utilitarian Analysis
A second argument in favor of providing intellectual property protection for software
producers is based on consequences. Failing to provide this protection would have net
harmful consequences. The argument goes like this [134]: When software is copied,
it reduces software purchases. If less software is purchased, less money flows to the
producers of software. As a result, less new software is produced. As a whole, new
software titles benefit society. When the number of new titles drops, society is harmed.
Therefore, when software is copied, society is harmed. Copying software is wrong.
You can view this argument as a chain of consequences (Figure 4.13). Copying
software causes software sales to drop, which causes the software industry to decline,
which causes fewer products to be released, which causes society to be harmed. Logically,
all the links in the chain must be strong in order for the argument to be convincing. We
will look at each of the links in turn, and we’ll see that none of them are strong.
The first claim is that copying software results in reduced sales of software. When
talking about software piracy, the computer industry cites the dollar value of the copied
software as if each instance of copying represents a lost sale. Obviously this is an exag-
4.9 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection for Software 207
geration. Not everyone who gets a free copy of a computer game has the money or the
desire to purchase the game for $50. In fact, sometimes software copying may lead to a
sale. A person may not have been interested in buying a particular program. After trying
it out for free, the person may decide it is so useful she is willing to buy a copy of the
program in order to get access to all of the documentation, the technical support line,
or another service provided to registered users of the program. It is fair to say that copy-
ing software sometimes results in reduced sales of software, but it is not always the case.
Hence it is incorrect to make a universal statement.
The second claim is that reduced sales of software result in a decline in the soft-
ware industry. An argument against this claim is the continued success of Microsoft,
despite the fact that software counterfeiting is prevalent in some countries. A better ar-
gument against the claim is that it makes a strong cause-and-effect connection between
the creation of software and financial remuneration. However, the open-source move-
ment demonstrates many people are willing to create software without being rewarded
financially. Some people write programs because they find it fun. Others are motivated
by the desire to gain a good reputation by writing a program many people find useful.
Advocates of open-source software, including Richard Stallman, suggest that the best
way to stimulate innovation is to allow a free exchange of ideas and source code. From
this point of view, allowing software producers to control the distribution of their code
stifles, rather than promotes, innovation in the software industry.
Finally, the second claim assumes that software customers are solely responsible for
the health of the software industry. In reality, other groups want to ensure that there are
plenty of new software titles released. Intel, for example, makes its money from selling
CPU chips. Every year the chips are faster. If a person owns a computer fast enough to
run his current programs, he has little motivation to upgrade the hardware. However,
if that same person purchases a new program that requires additional CPU cycles, he
may be motivated to upgrade his computer. Hence it is in Intel’s interest to encourage
the development of ever more computationally intensive computer programs. Software
customers are not solely responsible for promoting the growth of the software industry.
The third claim is that new software packages benefit society. This is a difficult claim
to prove. Certainly some programs benefit society more than others. Hence it’s not the
number of different programs that matters; it’s what they can be used for. The utility of
new software titles must be weighed against the utility of letting people give away copies
of programs that would help their friends.
4.9.3 Conclusion
We have examined two arguments for why society ought to provide intellectual property
protection to software creators. The first argument is based on the notion of just deserts.
It is a variation of the natural rights argument we discussed at the beginning of the
chapter. This argument is weak; it rests on the faulty assumption that a natural right
to own property extends cleanly to intellectual property.
The second argument is based on consequences. It holds that denying intellectual
property protection for software would have harmful consequences. It relies upon a
chain of cause-and-effect relationships: copying leads to a loss of revenue, which leads to
208 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
a decline in software production, which harms society. The strength of each of the links
in the chain is debatable; taken as a whole, the argument is not strong.
Our conclusion is that the arguments for granting intellectual property protection
for software are not strong. Nevertheless, our society has granted copyright protection
to owners of computer programs. If you violate a licensing agreement by copying a CD
containing a computer program and giving it to a friend, you are breaking the law. As
we discovered in Chapter 2, from the viewpoint of Kantianism, rule utilitarianism, and
social contract theory, breaking the law is wrong unless there is a strong overriding moral
obligation to do so.
4.10 Creative Commons
As we saw earlier in this chapter, some believe strong intellectual property protection
stimulates creativity by dangling the prospect of financial reward in front of artists and
inventors. Others believe that creativity is suppressed in such an environment. They
argue that people are more creative when they are free to build on the work of others.
Consider music, for example. It’s not just rap musicians who sample the works of others
to create new songs. Listen to the classical piece Appalachian Spring by Aaron Copland
and you’ll find that he used the Shaker hymn “Simple Gifts.”
Information technology has created an environment in which an unprecedented
amount of creativity could be unleashed. Never before has it been so inexpensive to
record and mix music, combine photographs and computer-generated images, or tape
and edit movies. Wouldn’t it be great to take what others have done and add your own
talents to produce even better works of art for everyone’s enjoyment? Quoting the movie
Get Creative on the Creative Commons Web site: “Collaboration across space and time.
Creative co-authorship with people you’ve never met. Standing on the shoulders of your
peers. It’s what the Internet is all about” [135].
Strong intellectual property protection, however, stands in the way of this vision.
Under current US copyright law, works of intellectual property are copyrighted the
moment they are made, even if the creator does not attach a copyright symbol © to the
work. Since copyright is implicit, permission is required before use. The current system
discourages people from building on the work of others.
Imagine the difficulty an art professor has trying to put together a Web site of images
for an online course! She needs to request permission for every image she wishes to
display on the Web site. Suppose there are three suitable images of Michelangelo’s Pieta.
It may be impossible for her to tell in advance which, if any, of the photographers would
be willing to let her use the image. It would be better if there were an official way for a
photographer to say, “It’s fine if you use this photograph, as long as you give me credit
for taking it.”
Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig realized there was a need for a system that
would allow producers of intellectual property to indicate to the world the rights they
wanted to keep. Lessig asks us to think about instances of the commons, a “resource
to which anyone within the relevant community has a right without obtaining the
4.10 Creative Commons 209
permission of anyone else” [136, p. 19–20]. Examples of the commons include public
streets, parks, beaches, the theory of relativity, and the works of Shakespeare. Lessig says
that “there is a benefit to resources held in common and the Internet is the best evidence
of that benefit. . . . The Internet forms an innovation commons” [136, p. 23]. The reason
Lessig calls the Internet an innovation commons is because its control is decentralized:
one person can introduce a new application or new content without getting anyone else’s
permission.
Lessig joined with Hal Abelson, James Boyle, Eric Eldred, and Eric Saltzman to
found the nonprofit corporation Creative Commons in 2001. Creative Commons pro-
vides standard copyright licenses free of charge. Every license comes in three forms:
human-readable, lawyer-readable, and computer-readable. With a Creative Commons
license, you can retain the copyright while allowing some uses of your intellectual prop-
erty under certain circumstances. Because you have published the circumstances under
which your work may be used, others do not have to ask for permission before using
your work [135].
How does the system work? Suppose you have taken a photograph and wish to
post it on your Web site accompanied by a Creative Commons license. You visit the
Creative Commons Web site (www.creativecommons.org), which allows you to choose
between six different licenses, depending upon your responses to two questions (quoted
verbatim):
. Allow commercial uses of your work?
Yes
No
. Allow modifications of your work?
Yes
Yes, as long as others share alike
No
After you answer these two questions, the Web site creates HTML code containing the
appropriate Creative Commons license. You can copy the HTML code and paste it into
the appropriate Web page along with your photograph. Visitors to your Web site will be
able to see a human-readable summary of the license you have chosen (Figure 4.14).
Commercial artists may choose to use Creative Commons licenses to increase ex-
posure to their work. For example, suppose you take a great photograph of the Golden
Gate Bridge. You post it on your Web site with a Creative Commons license indicating
the photograph may be used for noncommercial purposes as long as the user gives at-
tribution to you. People from around the world think the image is stunning, and they
copy it to their own personal Web sites, giving you credit for the photo. A travel agent
in a foreign country sees the image and wants to put it on a travel poster. Since this
is a commercial purpose, she must gain your permission before using the image. At
that time you can negotiate a fair price for its use. Without the widespread distribution
of the image through a Creative Commons license, the travel agent might never have
seen it.
www.creativecommons.org
210 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
Figure 4.14 A portion of the human-readable summary of a Creative Commons license as
it appears to a Web site visitor. (Screenshot from Creative Commons. Copyright © 2011 by Creative
Commons. Reprinted with permission.)
The computer-readable versions of the licenses are designed to make it easier for
search engines to identify content based upon the particular criteria. For example, a
history professor might use a search engine hoping to find an image of the Coliseum
in Rome that he could include on his Web site. His purpose is noncommercial, and he
is happy to credit the photographer, but he does not want to have to pay to display the
image or write a letter asking for the photographer’s permission. A search engine could
return only those images that meet these criteria.
By 2008 about 130 million different pieces of intellectual property had been dis-
tributed using Creative Commons licenses. In 2009 the Creative Commons Attribution-
Share Alike license became the principal content license for Wikipedia.
John Buckman has used Creative Commons licenses to create an online record label
called Magnatune [137]. Members who pay $15 a month can stream music from the site
and make unlimited downloads, with half of the proceeds going to the artists [138].
Summary
Intellectual property is any unique product of the human intellect that has commercial
value. Because our society values property rights, simply calling products of the intel-
Summary 211
lect “intellectual property” creates a bias toward ownership. Some believe the creators of
intellectual property have a natural right to own what they create. However, paradoxes
occur when we try to extend John Locke’s theory of property rights to intellectual prop-
erty. As we saw in our hypothetical scenarios involving William Shakespeare and Ben
Jonson, intellectual property has two characteristics that make it significantly different
from ordinary property. First, each creation is unique. That creates a problem when two
people independently create the same work. Second, ideas are copied, not stolen. When
I take your idea, you still have it. These paradoxes illustrate that Locke’s natural rights
argument for property does not extend to intellectual property. We conclude there are
no strong arguments for a natural right to intellectual property.
Nevertheless, our society recognizes the value of intellectual property creation. In
order to stimulate creativity in the arts and sciences, governments have decided to grant
limited ownership rights in intellectual property to its creators. In the United States,
there are four different ways in which individuals and organizations can protect their
intellectual property: trade secrets, trademarks/service marks, patents, and copyrights.
A trade secret is a confidential piece of intellectual property that provides a company
with a competitive advantage. The formula for Coca-Cola is a famous trade secret. A
company may keep a trade secret confidential indefinitely.
A trademark is a word, symbol, picture, sound, or color used by a business to
identify goods. A service mark is a mark identifying a service. Xerox is a well-known
trademark identifying a brand of photocopy machine. Companies protect their marks
to ensure they are used as adjectives rather than common nouns.
A patent gives an inventor the exclusive right to an invention for a period of 20 years.
A patent is a public document, and after the patent expires, anyone has the right to make
use of its ideas.
A copyright provides authors with certain rights to original works they have written:
reproduction, distribution, public display, performance, and production of derivative
works. Books, movies, sheet music, songs, and computer software are all protected by
copyright. Industries producing products protected by copyright account for 6 percent
of the US economy, with about $900 billion in annual sales. Over time, both the length
of copyright protection and the kinds of intellectual property that can be copyrighted
have increased significantly. Works created today are protected for the author’s lifetime
plus 70 years.
The rights given copyright holders are limited. The fair use doctrine allows cer-
tain uses of copyrighted works without asking the copyright holder for permission. To
determine whether a particular use is fair use, courts consider the purpose of the use
(commercial versus noncommercial), the nature of the work being copied (fiction ver-
sus nonfiction), how much of the copyrighted work is being used, and how the use will
affect the market for the copyrighted work. Two court cases legitimized time shifting
(recording a TV program for viewing later) and space shifting (copying a recording to
make it portable).
The introduction of digital technology and the Internet have brought intellectual
property issues to the forefront. Representing audio and video content digitally means
anyone with the right equipment can make perfect copies. Internet technology enables
these copies to be widely disseminated. Recording companies have responded by putting
212 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
new restrictions on copying, even though sometimes these restrictions make it impossi-
ble for consumers to make copies that were previously considered fair use. Many digital
rights management strategies have been abandoned or circumvented. Recording com-
panies have begun to soften their stance toward digital rights management, as evidenced
by the fact that consumers may now purchase DRM-free music from Amazon and the
Apple iTunes Store.
Peer-to-peer networks enable people to swap files around the world. Many of these
files contain copyrighted songs, TV shows, or movies. Napster facilitated the exchange of
music files until it was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
A judge shut down Napster after Napster indicated it could not block 100 percent of
attempted transfers of copyrighted material. However, other free file-sharing services
such as Grokster and StreamCast took Napster’s place. A diverse group of movie studios,
recording companies, music publishers, and songwriters sued Grokster and StreamCast.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Grokster and StreamCast could be held liable for the
copyright infringements of their users since they had actively promoted these activities.
Grokster shut down its peer-to-peer network and paid $50 million to copyright holders.
Despite these legal victories by the entertainment industry, popular Web sites such as the
Pirate Bay continue to facilitate the exchange of copyrighted materials on peer-to-peer
networks. Meanwhile, the RIAA has sued or demanded out-of-court settlements from
individuals who allegedly have distributed large numbers of copyrighted songs via the
Internet. These legal actions have reduced the percentage of Internet users who illegally
download music, or at least the percentage of Internet users who are willing to admit to
doing it.
Until the mid-1960s, there was no intellectual property protection for computer
software other than trade secrets. Now, both copyrights and patents are used to protect
software. The case of Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer demonstrates that object
code as well as source code is protected by copyright. The area of software patents is
highly controversial. There are a large number of bad software patents, and many soft-
ware patents have been issued for obvious inventions. Large corporations are stockpiling
software patents, so that if they are sued for infringing another company’s patent, they
can retaliate with their own patent infringement countersuit.
The open-source movement is an alternative to the more conventional proprietary
model of software development. A great deal of the software that keeps the Internet
running is open-source software. Linux is a popular operating system for servers. In
addition, many low-cost netbook computers are also using the Linux operating system.
The Android operating system is the most popular platform for smartphones. Popular
open-source desktop applications are Firefox and OpenOffice.org.
We examined the question, “Should we give intellectual property protection to
software?” There are both rights-based and utilitarian arguments why we ought to give
intellectual property protection to software. The first argument is based on the notion of
just deserts. It relies upon a natural right to intellectual property, which as we have seen is
a weak right at best. The second argument is based on a chain of consequences: copying
leads to a loss of revenue, which leads to a decline in software production, which harms
society. Taken as a whole, the second argument is not strong. In short, we concluded the
arguments for providing intellectual property protection to software are weak.
Review Questions 213
The story of the GNU Project and Linux demonstrates how thousands of volunteers
can work together to produce high-quality, industrial-strength software. Why can’t the
success of GNU/Linux be replicated in the arts? Imagine a culture that encouraged
the production of new creative works from existing works, a culture in which songs
would rapidly evolve, different versions of movies were exchanged and compared, and
hypertext novels accumulated links to fan sites. Today’s intellectual property laws make
it difficult to achieve this vision in the entertainment field. Little can be done with a
copyrighted work without first asking for permission, a labor-intensive process that
puts a drag on innovation. Creative Commons is an effort to streamline the process
by allowing copyright holders to indicate up front the conditions under which they are
willing to let other people use their work.
Review Questions
1. What is intellectual property? Give ten examples of intellectual property.
2. Summarize John Locke’s explanation why there is a natural right to property.
3. What paradoxes arise when we attempt to extend a natural right to property into the
realm of intellectual property?
4. What are the ways in which an individual or firm may protect intellectual property in
the United States?
5. What is the difference between a trademark and a trade secret?
6. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of patents versus trade secrets?
7. When referring to copyrighted materials, what is meant by the term “fair use”?
8. Explain how advances in information technology have made it easier for consumers to
violate copyright law.
9. How has the Digital Millennium Copyright Act affected fair use of copyrighted material
by consumers?
10. What does the term “digital rights management” mean? Describe three different tech-
nologies that have been used or proposed for digital rights management.
11. What is a peer-to-peer network?
12. What property makes the peer-to-peer network FastTrack more difficult to shut down
than Napster?
13. How does BitTorrent provide an order-of-magnitude increase in downloading speed
compared to earlier peer-to-peer networks?
14. The US Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not responsible for the copyright infringe-
ments of Betamax customers, but Grokster and StreamCast were responsible for the
copyright infringements of those who used their peer-to-peer networks. Explain the dif-
ferences in the two situations that led the Supreme Court to reach opposite conclusions.
15. Why are patents considered an unreliable way of protecting intellectual property rights
in software?
214 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
16. Suppose company A wants to develop a program that duplicates the functionality of a
program made by company B. Describe how company A may do this without violating
the copyrights held by company B.
17. When describing a software license, what does the phrase “open source” mean?
18. How has Linux affected the market for proprietary software?
19. Suppose your band has recorded a song and posted it as an MP3 file on your Web site.
How can you allow people to download your music for noncommercial purposes while
retaining your copyright on the song?
Discussion Questions
20. Benjamin Franklin created many useful inventions without any desire to receive finan-
cial reward. Is intellectual property protection needed in order to promote innovation?
21. Any original piece of intellectual property you have created, such as a poem, term paper,
or photograph, is automatically copyrighted, even if you did not label it with a copyright
notice. Think about your most valuable piece of intellectual property. Describe in detail
the ownership rights you would like to claim on it.
22. Do you support the aims of the Google Books project? Does this initiative give Google
too much power?
23. Discuss the morality of posting the 32-character encryption key for HD-DVDs on
Digg.com; the morality of terminating the poster’s account; and the morality of re-
posting the encryption key.
24. How does the debate over digital music illuminate the differences among ethics, moral-
ity, and law?
25. Is the concept of digital rights management doomed to failure?
26. What does the US Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster mean for the develop-
ment of future peer-to-peer network technologies?
27. The current legal system allows both proprietary software and open-source software to
be distributed. What are the pros and cons of maintaining the status quo?
28. Examine the analyses of Section 4.9 regarding the legitimacy of providing intellectual
property protection for software. Do these arguments apply equally well to the question
of providing intellectual property protection for music? Why or why not?
29. Should copyright laws protect musical compositions? Should copyright laws protect
recordings of musical performances?
30. Is it hopeless to try to protect intellectual property in digital media?
In-Class Exercises
31. A plane makes an emergency crash landing on a deserted tropical island. Two dozen
survivors must fend for themselves until help arrives. All of them are from large cities,
and none of them has camping experience. The survivors find it impossible to gather
Further Reading and Viewing 215
enough food, and everyone begins losing weight. One person spends a lot of time by
himself and figures out how to catch fish. He brings fish back to camp. Others ask him
to teach them how to catch fish. He refuses, but offers to share the fish he has caught
with the other passengers as long as they take care of the other camp chores, such as
hauling fresh water, gathering firewood, and cooking.
Debate the morality of the bargain proposed by the fisherman. One group should
explain why the fisherman’s position is morally wrong. The other group should explain
why the fisherman’s position is morally acceptable.
32. Survey 10 of your peers with these questions. How many tracks do they have in their
digital music collection? How many of these tracks did they download for free? How
many of these tracks did they get from friends or family members? How many of these
tracks did they rip from a CD they purchased? How many of these tracks did they
purchase online? After computing the averages, share the results with your classmates.
33. Research your university’s policy on bandwidth abuse and file sharing. What kinds of
activities are explicitly forbidden? Is the policy sensible?
Further Reading and Viewing
Kornhaber Brown. “F.A.T. Lab.” Off Book, September 13, 2011. 8:38. video.pbs.org.
Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr. “The Patent, Used as a Sword.” New York Times, October 7,
2012.
Charles Graeber. “Inside the Mansion—and Mind—of Kim Dotcom, the Most Wanted Man
on the Net.” Wired, October 12, 2012. www.wired.com.
C. G. P. Grey. “Copyright: Forever Less One Day.” 6:28. www.youtube.com/watch
?v=tk862BbjWx4.
“Has Fan Culture Changed Society?” Off Book, September 7, 2012. 6:49. video.pbs.org.
Leah Hoffmann. “Open for Business.” Communications of the ACM , Vol. 55, No. 4, April
2012.
Gwen Ifill. “How Effective Is Justice Department Crackdown on Online Sale of Counterfeit
Goods?” PBS NewsHour, November 29, 2011. 9:13. video.pbs.org.
Steven Levy. “The Patent Problem.” Wired, December 4, 2012. www.wired.com.
Peter S. Menell. “Design for Symbiosis.” Communications of the ACM , Vol. 55, No. 5, May
2012.
Randal C. Picker. “The Yin and Yang of Copyright and Technology.” Communications of the
ACM , Vol. 55, No. 1, January 2012.
Ray Suarez. “Big Stakes on Small Devices: Apple and Samsung Square Off in Federal Court.”
PBS NewsHour, July 30, 2012. 7:22. www.pbs.org/newshour.
Zach Weissmueller. “Too Much Copyright.” ReasonTV , April 19, 2012. 8:57. www.youtube
.com/watch?v=rFMl0stqai0.
Joel Woldfogel. “Digitization and Copyright: Some Recent Evidence from Music.” Commu-
nications of the ACM , Vol. 55, No. 5, May 2012.
Judy Woodruff. “Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Genes Cannot Be Patented.” PBS News-
Hour, July 8, 2013. 9:39. video.pbs.org.
www.wired.com
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4
www.wired.com
www.pbs.org/newshour
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMl0stqai0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMl0stqai0
216 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
References
[1] “Cell Phones Taking Center Stage at Concerts.” RedOrbit Inc., May 16, 2008. www
.redorbit.com.
[2] “Sixth Annual BSA-IDC Global Software 08 Piracy Study.” Business Software Alliance
and IDC, May 2009. www.bsa.org.
[3] Joe Karaganis. “Where Do Music Collections Come From?” American Assembly, Oc-
tober 15, 2012. piracy.americanassembly.org.
[4] Thomas Mennecke. “RIAA Announces New Campus Lawsuit Strategy.” Slyck News,
February 27, 2007. www.slyck.com.
[5] Denise Lavoie. “Joel Tenenbaum: Jury Awards $675,000 in Boston Music Downloading
Case.” Huffington Post , July 31, 2009. www.huffingtonpost.com.
[6] United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Sony BMG Music Enter-
tainment; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Atlantic Recording Corp.; Arista Records LLC;
and UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Joel Tenenbaum, 07cv11446-NG (July 9, 2010.).
[7] Adamson Rust. “‘RIAA Hit by ‘EFFing’ Music Campaign.” The Inquirer IT , June 30,
2003.
[8] University of Texas at Arlington, Office of Technology Transfer. “Intellectual Proper-
ties.” Accessed October 5, 2013. www.uta.edu/tto/ip-defs.htm.
[9] John Locke. Two Treatises of Government . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1988.
[10] Michael J. Scanlan. “Locke and Intellectual Property Rights.” In Intellectual Property
Rights in a Networked World, edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani.
Information Science Publishing, 2005, pp. 83–98.
[11] Edmund S. Morgan. Benjamin Franklin. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2002.
[12] Randolph P. Luck. “Letter to The Honorable Senator Spencer Abraham.” Luck’s Music
Library, June 28, 1996.
[13] Justice Breyer, dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States.Eric Eldred, et al. v. John
D. Ashcroft, No. 01-618 (January 15, 2003).
[14] Kembrew McLeod. Freedom of Expression(R): Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other
Enemies of Creativity. Doubleday, New York, NY, 2005.
[15] Lawrence Lessig. “The Same Old Song.” Wired, July 2005.
[16] “Happy Birthday, We’ll Sue.” Snopes.com, urban legends reference pages, April 27,
2007. www.snopes.com.
[17] Robert Brauneis. “Copyright and the World’s Most Popular Song.” GWU Legal Studies
Research Paper No. 1111624, George Washington University Law School, Washington,
DC, March 21, 2008.
[18] Neill A. Levy. “The Rights and Wrongs of Copyright.” CINAHL News. 15(1), Spring
1996.
[19] “What Is a Trademark?” Free Advice (Web site), Accessed October 5, 2013. www
.freeadvice.com.
[20] “General Trademark Guidelines.” Adobe Systems Inc., Accessed October 5, 2013. www
.adobe.com/misc/trade.html.
[21] John Case. “Snapshots in Legal Drama: Polaroid Inventor vs. Kodak.” Christian Science
Monitor, October 21, 1981.
www.redorbit.com
www.redorbit.com
www.bsa.org
www.slyck.com
www.huf.ngtonpost.com
www.uta.edu/tto/ip-defs.htm
www.snopes.com
www.freeadvice.com
www.freeadvice.com
www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html
www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html
References 217
[22] David E. Sanger. “Kodak Infringed on Polaroid Patents.” New York Times, September
14, 1985.
[23] Lawrence Edelman. “Kodak Pays Polaroid $925M; Part of a Surprise Out-of-Court
Settlement Ends 15-Year Legal Hassle.” Boston Globe, July 16, 1991.
[24] International Intellectual Property Alliance. “Copyright Industries in the US Econ-
omy: The 2011 Report.” Washington, DC, November 2011. www.iipa.com.
[25] United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Gershwin Publishing Corpora-
tion, Plaintiff-Appelle, v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,
and Community Concerts, Inc., Defendant, 443 F.2d 1159 (May 24, 1971).
[26] United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Basic Books, Inc.
v. Kinko’s Graphics Corporation, 758 F. Supp. 1522 (March 28, 1991).
[27] “Millbury Man Pleads Guilty in ‘Davey Jones’ Computer Case.” Worcester (MA) Tele-
gram & Gazette, December 16, 1994.
[28] Siva Vaidhyanathan. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and
How It Threatens Creativity. New York University Press, New York, NY, 2001.
[29] Suzanne Fields. “Free Mickey Mouse (and Robert Frost).” Jewish World Review, Jan-
uary 24, 2003.
[30] Chris Sprigman. “The Mouse That Ate the Public Domain: Disney, the Copyright
Term Extension Act, and Eldred v. Ashcroft.” FindLaw Legal News and Commentary,
March 5, 2002. writ.news.findlaw.com.
[31] “Brief for Petitioners.” Supreme Court of the United States. Eric Eldred, et al. v. John
D. Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General. 2002.
[32] “Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Primer.” WashingtonPost.com, January 15, 2003.
[33] Supreme Court of the United States. Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft, Attorney General, 239
F.3d 372, affirmed (January 15, 2003).
[34] Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property. www.adelphi
charter.org, 2007.
[35] Kathleen Amen, Tish Keogh, and Necia Wolff. “Digital Copyright.” Computers in
Libraries, May 2002.
[36] Supreme Court of the United States. Sony Corporation of American et al. v. Universal
City Studios, Inc., et al., 464 US 417 (January 17, 1984).
[37] “The Copyright Wars.” IEEE Spectrum, pp. 21–23, May 2003.
[38] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Leslie A. Kelly v. Arriba Soft
Corporation, 336 F.3d 811 (July 7, 2003).
[39] “About Google Books.” Accessed August 13, 2009. http://books.google.com/intl/en/
googlebooks/about.html.
[40] US District Court, Southern District of New York. The Authors Guild et al. v. Google
Inc, 05 CIV 8136 (September 20, 2005).
[41] US District Court, Southern District of New York. The McGraw-Hill Companies et al.
v. Google Inc., 05 CV 8881 (October 19, 2005).
[42] “Authors, Publishers, and Google Reach Landmark Settlement.” Google Press Center,
October 28, 2008. www.google.com.
[43] Erik Sherman. “Google Book Deal in DOJ Sights.” BNet (blog), June 11, 2009. www
.bnet.com.
[44] United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The Authors Guild et al.
v. Google Inc., 05 Civ. 8136 (DC) (March 22, 2011).
www.iipa.com
www.adelphicharter.org
www.adelphicharter.org
www.google.com
www.bnet.com
www.bnet.com
http://books.google.com/intl/en/googlebooks/about.html
http://books.google.com/intl/en/googlebooks/about.html
218 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
[45] Jennifer Howard. “Google Begins to Scale Back Its Scanning of Books from University
Libraries.” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 2012. chronicle.com.
[46] Hong Kong Trade Development Council. “EDU Reports Increase in Counterfeit and
Pirated Goods; Mainland China Still Found to Be Main Source.” May 30, 2008. www
.hktdc.com.
[47] Steven Andersen. “How Piracy, Culture and High-Tech Hackers Brought the Record-
ing Industry to Its Knees.” Corporate Legal Times, November 2002.
[48] David Goldman. “Music’s Lost Decade: Sales Cut in Half.” CNNMoney, February 3,
2010. money.cnn.com.
[49] Royal Van Horn. “The Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Other Egregious Laws.”
Phi Delta Kappan, November 2002.
[50] Kelly McCollum and Peter Schmidt. “How Forcefully Should Universities Enforce
Copyright Law on Audio Files?” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11, 1999.
[51] Dan Carnevale. “Some College Radio Stations Struggle to Determine Webcasting Pay-
ments.” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11, 2002.
[52] Christopher May. “Digital Rights Management and the Breakdown of Social Norms.”
First Monday 8(11), November 2003.
[53] Ron Harris. “Where’s SDMI? Digital Music Protection Effort Flames Out.” Associated
Press, April 29, 2002.
[54] Kevin Coughlin. “Cyber Music Makers Seek to Gag Code-Breakers.” Newhouse News
Service, April 24, 2001.
[55] John Markoff. “Scientists Drop Plan to Present Music-Copying Study That Record
Industry Opposed.” New York Times, April 27, 2001.
[56] “A Speed Bump vs. Music Copying: Master Cryptographer—and Code Cracker—
Edward Felten Says Technology Isn’t the Answer to Digital Copyright Violations.”
Business Week Online, January 9, 2002.
[57] “FAQ: Sony’s ‘Rootkit’ CDs.” CNet News, November 21, 2005. news.cnet.com.
[58] “Sony BMG Settlement FAQ.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.eff.org/IP/DRM/
Sony-BMG.
[59] Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani. “Notes on the DeCSS Trial.” In Readings in
CyberEthics, edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani. Jones and Bartlett,
Sudbury, MA, 2001.
[60] Gillian Law. “Defendant Acquitted in DVD Hacking Case.” IDG News Service, Jan-
uary 7, 2003. www.pcworld.com.
[61] Donna Euben. “Talkin’ ’bout a Revolution? Technology and the Law.” Academe,
May/June 2002.
[62] Heather Havenstein. “Revolt against Digg Tests Users Content Model.” Computer-
world, 41:19, May 7, 2007.
[63] Jeremy Kirk. “HD-DVD, Blu-Ray Protection in Question after Attacks.” InfoWorld,
April 16, 2007. infoworld.com.
[64] Ryan Paul. “Latest AACS Revision Defeated a Week Before Release.” Ars Technica, May
17, 2007. artechnica.com.
[65] S. Kim. “The Reinforcement of International Copyright for the Digital Age.” Intellec-
tual Property Journal 16:93–122, 2003.
[66] Tom Espiner. “British Library Calls for Digital Copyright Action.” CNet News, Septem-
ber 25, 2006. news.cnet.com.
www.hktdc.com
www.hktdc.com
www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG
www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG
www.pcworld.com
References 219
[67] Ali Matin. “Digital Rights Management (DRM) in Online Music Stores: DRM-
Encumbered Music Downloads’ Inevitable Demise as a Result of the Negative Effects
of Heavy-Handed Copyright Law.” Entertainment Law Review, Volume 28, Loyola Law
School, Los Angeles, CA, 2008.
[68] Michael Arrington. “EMI, Apple to Sell DRM-Free Music for $1.29/Song.” Tech-
Crunch, April 2, 2007. techcrunch.com.
[69] Jacqui Cheng. “Amazon Rounds Out DRM-Free Music Offering with Sony BMG.” Ars
Technica, January 10, 2008. arstechnica.com.
[70] “iTunes Store and DRM-Free Music: What You Need to Know.” MacWorld, January 7,
2009. www.macworld.com.
[71] Marc Whitten. Letter to Xbox Live members, June 10, 2013. news.xbox.com.
[72] Michael Rundle. “Microsoft Unveils Xbox One Privacy and Digital Rights Details
Ahead of E3.” Huffington Post UK , June 7, 2013. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.
[73] William Usher. “PS4 Grabs 95 percent of Consumer Votes after Amazon Ends Poll
Early.” Gamer Blend, June 16, 2013. www.cinemablend.com.
[74] Don Mattrick. “Your Feedback Matters—Update on Xbox One.” Xbox Wire, June 19,
2013. news.xbox.com.
[75] Danielle Roy. “Napster Timeline.” IDG News Service, Boston Bureau, April 2, 2001.
[76] Nathan Ruegger. “Napster Withers Away, but Peer-to-Peer Legacy Remains.” Dart-
mouth, October 3, 2002.
[77] Ron Harris. “Bankruptcy Judge Blocks Sale of Napster to Bertelsmann.” Associated
Press, September 4, 2002.
[78] “How to Pay the Piper.” Economist , May 1, 2003.
[79] “FastTrack.” Wikipedia, July 1, 2005. www.wikipedia.org.
[80] John Borland. “Super-Powered Peer to Peer.” CNet News, October 6, 2004. news.cnet
.com.
[81] Clive Thompson. “The BitTorrent Effect.” Wired, p. 150, January 2005.
[82] Krysten Crawford. “BitTorrent as Friend, Not Foe.” CNN.com, April 30, 2005.
[83] “Authorities Strike Back at ‘Star Wars’ Pirates.” Associated Press, May 25, 2005.
[84] Reuters. “Music Industry Sends Warnings to Song Swappers.” NYTimes.com, April 29,
2003.
[85] Phil Hardy. “Verizon Agrees to Give the RIAA the Names of Four Subscribers Alleged
to Be File-Sharing Copyrighted Works.” Music & Copyright , June 11, 2003.
[86] Sara Calabro. “RIAA Lawsuits—Music Industry Mistakes Its Lawsuits for a PR Ma-
neuver.” PR Week, September 22, 2003.
[87] Phil Hardy. “Media Reaction to RIAA’s New Round of Lawsuits Less Hostile but
Grassroots Opposition Grows.” Music & Copyright , October 29, 2003.
[88] John Schwartz. “Record Industry May Not Subpoena Online Providers.” NYTimes
.com, December 19, 2003.
[89] Kevin Fitchard. “Verizon Gains Upper Hand in RIAA Subpoena Ruling.” Telephony,
January 12, 2004.
[90] Mary Madden and Lee Rainie. “Music and Video Downloading Moves beyond P2P.”
Report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, March 23, 2005. www.pewinternet.org/
reports.
www.macworld.com
www.huf.ngtonpost.co.uk
www.cinemablend.com
www.wikipedia.org
www.pewinternet.org/reports
www.pewinternet.org/reports
220 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
[91] Mike Harvey. “Single-Mother Digital Pirate Jammie Thomas-Rasset Must Pay $80,000
per Song.” Sunday Times, June 19, 2009. www.thesundaytimes.co.uk.
[92] United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Capitol Records, Inc., et al. v.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 06-1497 (MJD/LIB) (July 22, 2011).
[93] Fred von Lohmann. “Offering to Distribute = Distribution, Says Court in Elektra v.
Barker.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 1, 2008. www.eff.org.
[94] Fred von Lohmann. “Making Available Is Not Distribution, Says Court in London-
Shire v. Doe.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 2, 2008. www.eff.org.
[95] Fred von Lohmann. “Big Victory in Atlantic v. Howell: Court Rejects RIAA ‘Making
Available’ Theory.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 29, 2008. www.eff.org.
[96] John Borland. “Judge: File-Swapping Tools Are Legal.” CNet News, April 25, 2003.
news.cnet.com.
[97] Supreme Court of the United States. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v.
Grokster, Ltd., et al., 545 US (June 27, 2005).
[98] John Borland. “Last Waltz for Grokster.” CNet News, November 7, 2005. news.cnet
.com.
[99] Jenny Stiernstedt, Astrid E. Johansson, and Fredrik Söderling. Translated by Oliver
Grassman. “the Pirate Bay Sentenced to One Year in Prison.” Kultur & Nöje (Sweden),
April 17, 2009. www.dn.se.
[100] David Sarno. “The Internet Sure Loves Its Outlaws.” Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2007.
[101] “Police Cleared of Wrongdoing in Pirate Bay Raid.” Local (Sweden), April 2, 2007.
www.thelocal.se.
[102] Nate Anderson. “Pirate Bay on IFPI Lawsuit: Labels Can ‘Go Screw Themselves’.” Ars
Technica, April 1, 2008. arstechnica.com.
[103] Associated Press. “Swedish Court Upholds Convictions in File-Sharing Case.” New
York Times, November 26, 2010. www.nytimes.com.
[104] Trace Hagan. “the Pirate Bay Acquires Caribbean Domain Name thepiratebay.sx.”
TweakTown, May 1, 2013. www.tweaktown.com.
[105] “‘Operation In Our Sites’ Targets Internet Movie Pirates.” US Department of Home-
land Security, June 30, 2010. www.ice.gov.
[106] “Operation In Our Sites Protects American Online Shoppers, Cracks Down on Coun-
terfeiters.” US Department of Homeland Security, November 28, 2011. www.ice.gov.
[107] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States of
America v. Kim Dotcom et al., [2012] NZHC 2076 (January 5, 2012).
[108] Geoffrey A. Fowler, Devlin Barrett, and Sam Schechner. “US Shuts Offshore File-Share
‘Locker’.” Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2012.
[109] Chloe Albanesius. “After Megaupload, FileSonic Disables File Sharing.” PC Magazine,
January 23, 2012.
[110] Nate Lanxon. “FileSonic, FileServe Pull Fire-Sharing Services Following Megaupload
Arrests.” Wired.co.uk, January 23, 2012. wired.co.uk.
[111] “iTunes Store Top Music Retailer in the US.” Apple (press release), April 3, 2008. www
.apple.com.
[112] “The Nielsen Company & Billboard’s 2011 Music Industry Report.” Business Wire,
January 5, 2012. www.businesswire.com.
www.thesundaytimes.co.uk
www.eff.org
www.eff.org
www.dn.se
www.thelocal.se
www.nytimes.com
www.tweaktown.com
www.ice.gov
www.ice.gov
www.apple.com
www.apple.com
www.businesswire.com
www.eff.org
References 221
[113] Lee A. Hollaar. Legal Protection of Digital Information. Bureau of National Affairs,
Washington, DC, 2002.
[114] Daniel A. Tysver. “The History of Software Patents: From Benson and Diehr to State
Street and Bilski.” BitLaw, accessed August 14, 2011. www.bitlaw.com.
[115] Rob Tiller. “The PTO Addresses Bilski and Software Patents.” Opensource.com, Sep-
tember 30, 2010. opensource.com.
[116] “Microsoft Patent Portfolio Tops IT Industry Scorecards.” Microsoft News Center,
January 28, 2008. www.microsoft.com.
[117] Michael Kanellos. “Patent Auctions: Lawyer’s Dream or Way of the Future?” ZDNet
News, March 3, 2006. web.archive.org.
[118] Matthew Sag and Kurt Rohde. “Patent Reform and Differential Policy.” Northwestern
Law & Econ Research Paper No. 925722, Chicago, IL, August 21, 2006. papers.ssrn
.com.
[119] Barrie McKenna, Paul Waldie, and Simon Avery. “Patently Absurd.” Global and Mail,
February 21, 2006. www.theglobeandmail.com.
[120] Rob Kelley. “BlackBerry Maker, NTP Ink $612 Million Settlement.” CNNMoney,
March 3, 2006. money.cnn.com.
[121] Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr. “The Patent, Used as a Sword.” New York Times,
October 7, 2012. www.nytimes.com.
[122] Larry Downes. “The Bilski Case and the Future of Software Patents.” Center for Inter-
net and Society, November 11, 2009. cyberlaw.stanford.edu.
[123] Jeff Bezos. “An Open Letter from Jeff Bezos on the Subject of Patents.” About Ama-
zon.com, March 2000. web.archive.org.
[124] Richard P. Stallman. “Why Software Should Not Have Owners.” GNU Project Web
Server, June 17, 2003. www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
[125] “The Open Source Definition.” Open Source Initiative, 2003. www.opensource.org/
docs/definition.php.
[126] Carolyn A. Kenwood. “A Business Case Study of Open Source Software.” Technical
report, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, July 2001.
[127] Andrew Leonard. “Let My Software Go!” Salon.com, April 14, 1998. www.salon.com.
[128] Tarmo Virki and Sinead Carew. “Google Topples Nokia from Smartphones Top Spot.”
Reuters, January 31, 2011. uk.reuters.com.
[129] Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. “The Web Browser Wars Continue, and #1 Is… Well, That
Depends on Whom You Ask.” ZDNet , January 2, 2013. www.zdnet.com.
[130] Stephen Shankland. “Study Lauds Open-Source Code Quality.” CNet News, February
19, 2003. news.cnet.com.
[131] Richard P. Stallman. “Linux and the GNU Project.” GNU Project Web Server, Decem-
ber 14, 2002. www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
[132] Sean Michael Kerner. “LinuxCon Analysts: Linux Is Winning.” Datamation, August
12, 2010. www.datamation.com.
[133] Top 500 Supercomputer Sites (Web site). Accessed August 18, 2013. www.top500.org.
[134] Helen Nissenbaum. “Should I Copy My Neighbor’s Software?” In Computers, Ethics,
& Social Values, edited by Deborah G. Johnson and Helen Nissenbaum. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
www.bitlaw.com
www.microsoft.com
www.theglobeandmail.com
www.nytimes.com
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
www.opensource.org/docs/de.nition.php
www.opensource.org/docs/de.nition.php
www.salon.com
www.zdnet.com
www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
www.datamation.com
www.top500.org
222 Chapter 4 Intellectual Property
[135] Creative Commons, Stanford Law School. Get Creative (movie), 2002. www.creative
commons.org.
[136] Lawrence Lessig. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.
Random House, New York, NY, 2001.
[137] Ariana Eunjung Cha. “Creative Commons Is Rewriting Rules of Copyright.” Washing-
ton Post , March 15, 2005.
[138] “What Is ‘Open Music’?” Magnatune (Web site), July 7, 2005. magnatune.com.
www.creativecommons.org
www.creativecommons.org
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
June Besek
June Besek is the executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law,
Media and the Arts and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School in
New York City, where she teaches “Current Issues in Copyright” and
a seminar that focuses on the rights of individual authors and artists.
Previously she was a partner in a New York City law firm where she
specialized in copyright law. She is a former chair of the Copyright
Division of the American Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Law
Section. She is a frequent speaker on copyright issues and the author
of many articles on copyright law, particularly as it relates to new
technologies.
I read that Bob Dylan, Charlie Daniels, Loretta Lynn, Don Henley from the Eagles, and
other recording artists have notified the US Copyright Office that they intend to exercise
their termination rights and recover the copyrights to their music. What are termination
rights?
Section 203 of the Copyright Act gives authors or their heirs the right to terminate any grant of
copyrights like a license or assignment 35 years after the grant was made. That particular termination
right applies only to grants made by the author on or after January 1, 1978. When I say “authors,” I
mean any kind of creators: book authors, composers, sound-recording artists, and so on. The effect of
termination is that all of the rights that were transferred or licensed under the grant revert back to the
authors or their heirs.
Why do we have termination rights?
The point of termination is that authors and artists often have very little bargaining power when
they negotiate contracts, and frequently neither the author nor the publisher has any realistic idea of
how popular or how lucrative their work might become. So this termination provision lets an author
renegotiate the agreement or even take the work to a new publisher and maybe get more money or
perhaps more control over how the work is marketed.
Why is this specifically an issue in the sound-recording context?
Federal copyright law didn’t protect sound recordings until 1972, and then there was a major revision
of the copyright law that went into effect six years later. A lot of the recordings created under the
old law were done as “works made for hire,” and therefore under the law the grants weren’t eligible
for termination. The work-made-for-hire rules were changed in 1978, but there haven’t yet been any
terminations under the revised copyright law, so the effect of the revised work-made-for-hire rules on
artists’ ability to terminate is uncertain. That’s why this is a new issue.
Must recording artists give notice to reclaim ownership?
Yes, in order to reclaim their rights they have to give notice. If you signed a grant the first day of the
new Copyright Act, January 1, 1978, the earliest you could terminate would be January 1, 2013. In
order to terminate, you have to serve a notice on the party whose grant you’re terminating, and you
have to file it in the Copyright Office. That notice can be served anywhere from ten years out to two
years out. So if you wanted to terminate at the beginning of 2013, you could have served that notice as
early as the beginning of 2003 and as late as the beginning of 2011. But there’s a five-year window for
terminating. So if you didn’t serve the notice in 2011, you can’t terminate in 2013. But you have until
January 1, 2018, to actually terminate the grant.
It’s important to note that even if you terminate the grant to a copyright, you can’t cut off the rights
to derivative works that have already been made. Suppose the record company licensed your recording
to be used in some sort of combination recording, where one track is run over the other to create a
new recording. If that was done with authorization, you can’t cut off the rights to that. It could still be
marketed, and you would continue to be paid for it. But you can prevent new derivative works from
being made from your recording.
Is there any reason why sound-recording artists wouldn’t want to reclaim copyright
ownership of their work?
Some recording artists own the label. If they own their own label, then they wouldn’t have any partic-
ular interest in termination. If they’re very happy with their relationship with their label, maybe they
wouldn’t want to terminate. A lot of people wouldn’t want to be the test case, so they might kind of
drag their heels until they see what’s happening with other people.
What’s the problem with being the test case?
Litigation is very expensive. You could spend as much in litigation as you could ever hope to gain on
your recordings. So the people who are the test cases will likely be the artists who are making a fair
amount of money from their older recordings and are willing to spend money and time and effort to
get out from under their record company.
Which side do you think has the stronger argument?
This is a very complicated issue. It all revolves around whether or not these works are works made for
hire, because you can terminate the copyright grant if the work was created in your individual capacity,
but you can’t terminate if it is a work made for hire.
There are two ways a work can be a work made for hire. One is if it was created by an employee in
the course of his or her employment. That usually is not the case with sound recordings. For the most
part, the artists are not employees of the label. But the other way it can be a work made for hire is if it’s
a specially commissioned work. For a commissioned work to be a work made for hire, there has to be
an agreement signed by both parties that the work will be work made for hire, and the work has to fall
within one of nine specified categories of works. If it doesn’t fit into one of these categories, it doesn’t
matter what you said in your agreement; it’s not a work made for hire.
Most of these categories aren’t ones that sound recordings would likely fall into. But there are three
categories that sound recordings might fit into: a contribution to a collective work, part of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, or a compilation. Most of the time the label’s money is going to
be on a contribution to a collective work. They’ll say, “We have a signed agreement, and we hired you
recording artists to create your sound recording as part of a collective work—specifically, an album.
Therefore, it is a work made for hire, and you are not entitled under the law to terminate it.”
It’s not clear to me whether the labels will succeed. I think these cases are going to be very fact based. So
to answer your question, I think it’s going to depend upon the circumstances under which the sound
recording was created. If the recording was created and marketed as a single, I don’t think you have a
contribution to a collective work. Also, some courts have held that a work-made-for-hire agreement
must be signed before the song is recorded. So if the case were to go to one of those courts, then the
success of the artist could depend on when the contract was signed. And there are some other more
complicated arguments that might be made with regard to whether a particular recording is a work
made for hire. But everybody is going to be watching those first cases very carefully.
Does it matter that artists typically get an advance for making an album, but then they
end up having to pay all the costs of producing the album, and that has to come out of
their future royalties?
That’s very relevant because it suggests that they’re not employees, they’re outside contractors. But
because the statute allows in some cases for outside contractors to create works made for hire, I don’t
think the fact that the artists have to pick up these expenses necessarily indicates that it’s a not a work
for hire. It more likely depends on whether you can shoehorn the particular recording into one of these
commissioned-work categories.
As I mentioned, the cases are somewhat fact based. That means the label may win in one case and
the artist in another because the facts are different. For example, there are sound recordings that were
created as a contribution to a motion picture or other audiovisual work. That’s one of the categories.
And if that’s the case, then it will be a work for hire, assuming there was a signed agreement. But most
sound recordings were not created that way. So even if one case comes out one way, it doesn’t mean
they all will.
Are the stakes in this so high that the losing party would want to keep appealing all the
way to the US Supreme Court?
Probably. I would be surprised if this would get resolved before you get to that level. If the record
labels are not successful in claiming that these are works made for hire, it definitely will diminish an
important income stream. So I don’t think they will just accept a negative decision. This is true of the
artists as well.
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
C H A P T E R
5 Information
Privacy
Count not him among your friends who will retail your privacies to the world.
—–Publilius Syrus (100 BCE)
5.1 Introduction
Do you want to know where I live? If you visit the WhitePages.com Web site and
type my phone number into the Reverse Phone field, it returns a page giving my name
and address. Click on the address and you’ll soon see a map of the neighborhood around
my house.
Spend a few seconds more, and you can learn a lot about my standard of living.
Go to Zillow.com and enter the address that you just learned from whitepages.com.
Zillow dutifully returns the estimated value of my house, based on public records that
document its size, its assessed value, and information about recent sales of other homes
in my neighborhood. Click on the Street View tab and you’ll see a photo of my house
taken from Google’s camera-equipped car as it passed down my street.
If you become a friend of one of my friends on Facebook, you can get even more
glimpses into my personal life by viewing photos of me that other people have posted
and tagged. You can see me lounging by a swimming pool at a family reunion, juggling
croquet balls, unwrapping a Christmas present, and walking my daughter Shauna down
the aisle on her wedding day.
228 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems, caused quite a stir when he
said, “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it” [1]. You can’t deny that computers,
databases, and the Internet have made it easier than ever to get lots of information about
total strangers. Still, many of us would like to think that we can keep some things private.
Is it possible to maintain privacy in the Information Age?
NON SEQUITUR © 2005 Wiley Ink, Inc. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK.
Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
In this chapter we focus on privacy issues related to the introduction of information
technology. We begin by taking a philosophical look at privacy. What is privacy exactly?
Do we have a natural right to privacy in the same way that we have the right to property
and the right to liberty? What about our need to know enough about others so that we
can trust them? How do we handle conflicts between the right to privacy and the right
to free expression?
We then survey some of the ways that we leave an “electronic trail” of information
behind us as we go about our daily lives. Both private organizations and governments
construct databases documenting our activities.
Finally, we take a look at data mining, an important tool for building profiles of
individuals and communities. Companies use data mining to improve service and target
product marketing to the right consumers. Sometimes they push on the borders of
personal privacy a little too hard; we look at a few examples where companies have had
to retreat because of a consumer backlash.
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 229
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy
In this section we explore what the word “privacy” means, survey some positive and
negative consequences of granting people privacy, and discuss whether privacy is a
natural right, like the right to life.
5.2.1 Defining Privacy
Philosophers struggle to define privacy. Discussions about privacy revolve around the
notion of access, where access means either physical proximity to a person or knowledge
about that person. There is a tug-of-war between the desires, rights, and responsibilities
of a person who wants to restrict access to himself, and the desires, rights, and responsi-
bilities of outsiders to gain access.
From the point of view of an individual seeking to restrict access, privacy is a “zone
of inaccessibility” that surrounds a person [2]. You have privacy to the extent that you
can control who is allowed into your zone of inaccessibility. For example, you exercise
your privacy when you lock the door behind you when using the toilet. You also exercise
your privacy when you choose not to tell the clerk at the health club your Social Security
number. However, privacy is not the same thing as being alone. Two people can have
a private relationship. It might be a physical relationship, in which each person lets
the other person become physically close while excluding others, or it might be an
intellectual relationship, in which they exchange letters containing private thoughts.
When we look at privacy from the point of view of outsiders seeking access, the
discussion revolves around where to draw the line between what is private and what
is public (known to all). Stepping over this line and violating someone’s privacy is an
affront to that person’s dignity [3]. You violate someone’s privacy when you treat him or
her as a means to an end. Put another way, some things ought not to be known. Suppose
a friend invites you to see a cool movie trailer available on the Web. You follow him into
the computer lab. He sits down at an available computer and begins to type in his login
name and password. While it is his responsibility to keep his password confidential, it
is also generally accepted that you ought to avert your eyes when someone is typing in
their password. Another person’s password is not something that you should know.
On the other hand, society can be harmed if individuals have too much privacy.
Suppose a group of wealthy people of the same racial, ethnic, and religious background
forms a private club. The members of the club share information with each other that
is not available to the general public. If the club facilitates business deals among its
members, it may give them an unfair advantage over others in the community who are
just as capable of fulfilling the contracts. In this way, privacy can encourage social and
economic inequities, and the public at large may benefit if the group had less privacy (or
its membership were more diverse).
Here is another example of a public/private conflict, but this one focuses on the
privacy of an individual. Most of us distinguish between a person’s “private life” (what
they do at home) and their “public life” (what they do at work). In general, we may agree
that people have the right to keep outsiders from knowing what they do away from work.
However, suppose a journalist learns that a wealthy candidate for high public office has
230 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
lost millions of dollars gambling in Las Vegas. Does the public interest outweigh the
politician’s desire for privacy in this case?
In summary, privacy is a social arrangement that allows individuals to have some
level of control over who is able to gain access to their physical selves and their personal
information.
5.2.2 Harms and Benefits of Privacy
A little reflection reveals that privacy can have both harmful and beneficial conse-
quences.
HARMS OF PRIVACY
Giving people privacy can result in harm to society. Some people take advantage of
privacy to plan and carry out illegal or immoral activities. Most wrongdoing takes place
under the cover of privacy [4].
Some commentators suggest that increasing privacy has caused unhappiness by
putting too great a burden on the nuclear family to care for all of its members. In the
past people received moral support not just from their immediate family but also from
other relatives and neighbors. Today, by contrast, families are expected to solve their own
problems, which puts a great strain on some individuals [5].
On a related note, family violence leads to much pain and suffering in our society.
Often, outsiders do not even acknowledge that a family is dysfunctional until one of
its members is seriously injured. One reason dysfunctional families can maintain the
pretense of normality as long as they do is because our culture respects the privacy of
each family [6].
Humans are social beings. Most of us seek some engagement with others. The
poor, the mentally ill, and others living on the fringes of society may have no problem
maintaining a “zone of inaccessibility,” because nobody is paying any attention to them.
For outcasts, an abundance of privacy may be a curse, not a blessing.
BENEFITS OF PRIVACY
Socialization and individuation are both necessary steps for a person to reach maturity.
Privacy is necessary for a person to blossom as an individual [7].
Privacy is the way in which a social group recognizes and communicates to the
individual that he is responsible for his development as a unique person, a separate
moral agent [8]. Privacy is a recognition of each person’s true freedom [9].
Privacy is valuable because it lets us be ourselves. Consider the following example.
Imagine you are in a park playing with your child. How would your behavior be different
if you knew someone was carefully watching you, perhaps even videotaping you, so
that he or she could tell others about your parenting skills? You might well become
self-conscious about your behavior. Few people would be able to carry on without any
change to their emotional state or physical actions [10].
On a similar note, privacy lets us remove our public persona [11]. Imagine a busi-
nessman who is having a hard time with one of his company’s important clients. At
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 231
work, he must be polite to the client and scrupulously avoid saying anything negative
about the client in front of any coworkers, lest he demoralize them, or even worse, lose
his job. In the privacy of his home, he can “blow off steam” by confiding in his wife,
who lends him a sympathetic ear and helps motivate him to get through the tough time
at work. If people did not have privacy, they would have to wear their public face at all
times, which could be damaging to their psychological health.
Privacy can foster intellectual activities. It allows us to shut out the rest of the world
so that we can focus our thoughts without interruption, be creative, and grow spiritually
[12, 13, 14].
Some maintain that privacy is the only way in which people can develop relation-
ships involving respect, love, friendship, and trust. You can think of privacy as “moral
capital” [15]. People use this capital to build intimate relationships. Taking away people’s
privacy means taking away their moral capital. Without moral capital, they have no
means to develop close personal relationships.
In order to have different kinds of social relationships with different people, we need
to have some kind of control over who knows what about us [16]. You can imagine
everyone having a “ladder” of privacy [10]. At the top of the ladder is the person we
share the most information with. For many people, this person is their spouse. As we
work our way down the ladder, we encounter people we would share progressively less
information with. Here is an example of what someone’s ladder of privacy might look
like:
spouse
priest/minister/rabbi/imam
brothers and sisters
parents
children
friends
in-laws
coworkers
neighbors
marketers
employers
government
news media
ex-spouses
potential rivals/enemies
Others are critical of suggestions that tie intimacy too closely to sharing informa-
tion [8]. A woman might tell her psychoanalyst things she would not even reveal to her
husband, but that does not imply that she experiences deeper intimacy with her psycho-
analyst than with her husband. Intimacy is not just about sharing information; it’s also
232 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
about caring. The mutual caring that characterizes a healthy marriage results in a greater
level of intimacy than can be gained simply by sharing personal information.
SUMMARY
To summarize our discussion, allowing people to have some privacy has a variety of
beneficial effects. Granting people privacy is one way that society recognizes them as
adults and indicates they are responsible for their own moral behavior. Privacy helps
people to develop as individuals and to truly be themselves. It provides people the
opportunity to shut out the world, be more creative, and develop spiritually. It allows
each of us to create different kinds of relationships with different people.
Privacy also has numerous harmful effects. It provides people with a way of covering
up actions that are immoral or illegal. If a society sends a message that certain kinds
of information must be kept private, some people caught in abusive or dysfunctional
relationships may feel trapped and unable to ask others for help.
Weighing these benefits and harms, we conclude that granting people at least some
privacy is better than denying people any privacy at all. That leads us to our next ques-
tion: Is privacy a natural right, like the right to life?
5.2.3 Is There a Natural Right to Privacy?
Most of us agree that every person has certain natural rights, such as the right to life, the
right to liberty, and the right to own property. Many people also talk about our right to
privacy. Is this a natural right as well?
PRIVACY RIGHTS EVOLVE FROM PROPERTY RIGHTS
Our belief in a right to privacy may have grown out of our property rights [7]. His-
torically, Europeans have viewed the home as a sanctuary. The English common law
tradition has been that “a man’s home is his castle.” No one—not even the king—can
enter without permission, unless there is probable cause of criminal activity.
In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required American
colonies to provide British soldiers with accommodations in taverns, inns, and unoccu-
pied buildings. After the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the British Parliament attempted to
restore order in the colonies by passing the Coercive Acts. One of these acts amended the
Quartering Act to allow the billeting of soldiers in private homes, breaking the centuries-
old common law tradition and infuriating many colonists. It’s not surprising, then, that
Americans restored the principle of home as sanctuary in the Bill of Rights.
�
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
�
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 233
In certain villages in the Basque region of Spain, each house is named after the
person who originally constructed it. Villagers refer to people by their house names,
even if the family living in the house has no relation to the family originally dwelling
there.
These examples show a strong link between a person and his property. From this
viewpoint, privacy is seen in terms of control over personal territory, and privacy rights
evolve out of property rights.
WARREN AND BRANDEIS: CLEARLY PEOPLE HAVE
A RIGHT TO PRIVACY
We can see this evolution laid out in a highly influential paper, published in 1890, by
Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis. Samuel Warren was a Harvard-educated lawyer who
became a businessman when he inherited a paper manufacturing business. His wife was
the daughter of a US senator and a leading socialite in Boston. Her parties attracted the
upper crust of Boston society. They also attracted the attention of the Saturday Evening
Gazette, a tabloid that delighted in shocking its readers with lurid details about the lives
of the Boston Brahmins.1 Fuming at the paper’s coverage of his daughter’s wedding,
Warren enlisted the aid of Harvard classmate Louis Brandeis, a highly successful Boston
attorney (and future US Supreme Court justice). Together Warren and Brandeis pub-
lished an article in the Harvard Law Review called “The Right to Privacy” [17]. In their
highly influential paper, Warren and Brandeis argue that political, social, and economic
changes demand recognition for new kinds of legal rights. In particular, they write that
it is clear that people in modern society have a right to privacy and that this right ought
to be respected. To make their case, they focus on—as you might have guessed—abuses
of newspapers.
According to Warren and Brandeis:
The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and
of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has
become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy the
prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of
the daily papers. . . . The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advanc-
ing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man,
under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so
that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but mod-
ern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected
him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily
injury. [17, p. 196]
Meanwhile, Warren and Brandeis argue, there are no adequate legal remedies avail-
able to the victims. Laws against libel and slander are not sufficient because they do not
address the situation where malicious but true stories about someone are circulated.
Laws addressing property rights also fall short because they assume people have control
1. To learn more about the Boston Brahmins, consult Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org).
www.wikipedia.org
234 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
Figure 5.1 Warren and Brandeis argued that the legal system should protect people’s “right
to be let alone.” (PhamousFotos/Splash News/Newscom)
over the ways in which information about themselves is revealed. However, cameras and
other devices are capable of capturing information about a person without that person’s
consent (Figure 5.1).
Warren and Brandeis pointed out that the right to privacy had already been rec-
ognized by French law. They urged the American legal system to recognize the right to
privacy, which they called “the right to be let alone” [17]. Their reasoning was highly in-
fluential. Though it took decades, the right to privacy is now recognized in courts across
America [18].
THOMSON: EVERY “PRIVACY RIGHT” VIOLATION IS A
VIOLATION OF ANOTHER RIGHT
Judith Jarvis Thomson has a completely different view about a right to privacy. She
writes: “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy is that nobody seems
to have any very clear idea what it is” [19]. Thomson points out problems with defining
privacy as “the right to be let alone,” as Warren and Brandeis have done. In some
respects, this definition of privacy is too narrow. Suppose the police use an X-ray device
and supersensitive microphones to monitor the movements and conversations of Smith
in his home. The police have not touched Smith or even come close to him. He has no
knowledge they are monitoring him. The police have let Smith alone, yet people who
believe in a right to privacy would surely argue that they have violated Smith’s privacy.
In other respects, the definition of privacy as “the right to be let alone” is too broad. If
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 235
I hit Jones on the head with a brick, I have not let him alone, but it is not his right of
privacy I have violated—it is his right to be secure in his own person.
Thomson argues that whenever the right to privacy is violated, another right is
violated as well. For example, suppose a man owns a pornographic picture. He doesn’t
want anyone else to know he owns it, so he keeps it in a wall safe. He only takes it out of
his safe when he has taken pains to prevent others from looking into his home. Suppose
we use an X-ray machine to look into his home safe and view the picture. We have
violated his privacy, but we have also violated one of his property rights—the right to
decide who (if anybody) sees the picture.
Here is another example. Suppose a Saudi Arabian woman wishes to keep her face
covered for religious reasons. When she goes out in public, she puts a veil over her face.
If I should walk up and pull away her veil to see her face, I have violated her privacy. But
I have also violated one of her rights over her person—to decide who should touch her.
According to Thomson, there are a cluster of rights associated with privacy, just as
there are a cluster of rights associated with property and a cluster of rights associated
with our physical self. In Thomson’s view, every violation of a privacy right is also a
violation of a right in some other cluster. Since this is the case, there is no need to define
privacy precisely or to decide exactly where to draw the line between violations of privacy
and acceptable conduct.
AUTONOMOUS MORAL AGENTS NEED SOME PRIVACY
Thomson is not alone in disputing that privacy is a natural right. Many philosophers
think privacy principles should be based on the more fundamental principle that each
person is worthy of respect [9]. We give each other privacy because we recognize privacy
is needed if people are to be autonomous moral agents able to develop healthy personal
relationships and act as free citizens in a democratic society.
Jeffrey Reiman supports this view:
The right to privacy protects the individual’s interest in becoming, being, and re-
maining a person. It is thus a right which all human individuals possess—even
those in solitary confinement. It does not assert a right never to be seen even on
a crowded street. It is sufficient that I can control whether and by whom my body is
experienced in some significant places and that I have the real possibility of repair-
ing to those places. It is a right which protects my capacity to enter into intimate
relations, not because it protects my reserve of generally withheld information,
but because it enables me to make the commitment that underlies caring as my
commitment uniquely conveyed by my thoughts and witnessed by my actions. [8,
p. 314]
Note Reiman’s fairly restricted view of privacy. He carefully points out areas where
privacy is necessary. He does not argue that privacy is a natural right, nor does he suggest
that a person has complete control over what is held private.
CONCLUSION: PRIVACY IS A PRUDENTIAL RIGHT
In conclusion, philosophers disagree whether there is a natural right to privacy, but
most commentators can agree that privacy is a prudential right. That means rational
236 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
agents would agree to recognize some privacy rights because granting these rights is to
the benefit of society [20].
5.2.4 Privacy and Trust
While many people complain about threats to privacy, it is clear upon reflection that
we have more privacy than our ancestors did [21]. Only a couple of centuries ago,
our society was agrarian. People lived with their extended families in small homes.
The nearest community center was the village, where everyone knew everyone else
and people took a keen interest in each other’s business. Organized religion played an
important role in everyday life. In this kind of society, there was a strong pressure to
conform [11]. There was greater emphasis on the community and lesser emphasis on
the individual.
Modern culture fosters much greater privacy. Prosperity, the single-family home,
the automobile, television, and computers have contributed to our privacy. The single-
family home gives us physical separation from other people. The automobile allows us
to travel alone instead of on a bus or train in the presence of others. The television brings
entertainment to us inside the comfort of our homes, taking us out of the neighborhood
movie theater. With a computer and an Internet connection, we can access information
at home rather than visit the public library [10]. These are just a few examples of ways
in which modern conveniences allow us to spend time by ourselves or in the company
of a few family members or friends.
In the past, young people typically lived at home with their parents until they were
married. Today many young unmarried adults live autonomously. This lifestyle provides
them with previously unthought-of freedom and privacy [21].
The consequence of all this privacy is that we live among strangers. Many people
know little more about their neighbors than their names (if that). Yet when we live in a
society with others, we must be able to trust them to some extent. How do we know that
the taxi driver will get us where we want to go without hurting us or overcharging us?
How do parents know that their children’s teachers are not child molesters? How does
the bank know that if it loans someone money, it will be repaid?
In order to trust others, we must rely on their reputations. This was easier in the
past, when people didn’t move around so much and everyone knew everyone else’s
history. Today society must get information out of people to establish reputations. One
way of getting information from a person is through an ordeal, such as a lie detector
test or a drug test. The other way to learn more about individuals is to issue (and
request) credentials, such as a driver’s license, key, employee badge, credit card, or
college degree [21].
5.2.5 Case Study: The New Parents
Jim and Peggy Sullivan are the proud parents of a baby girl. As soon as Peggy became
pregnant, they had begun exploring options for child care because both of them have
full-time and highly satisfying careers in the computer field. They visited numerous
day care facilities, but the ones they liked the best had no openings. For this reason
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy 237
they decided to hire a personal nanny, even though it was more expensive. After their
daughter was born, Peggy spent three months at home on maternity leave. During this
time she interviewed a half dozen nannies and hired one after carefully checking her
references and giving Jim the opportunity to interview her as well.
Just before the end of Peggy’s maternity leave, she has coffee with a few a her
friends who are all mothers of young children. The friends tell Peggy horror stories about
abusive nannies, and they all recommend a software program called LiveSecurityWatch.
Jim and Peggy purchase LiveSecurityWatch and install it on a laptop computer placed
in the family room. With the system in place, Jim and Peggy can use their workplace
computers to see and hear how the nanny interacts with their baby. The nanny has no
idea that the Sullivans’ computer is being used as a surveillance system.
Is it wrong for Jim and Peggy Sullivan to secretly monitor the behavior of their
baby’s nanny?
RULE UTILITARIAN EVALUATION
If all parents monitored their nannies or child care providers and took actions when
warranted, such as firing nannies who did not perform well, it is unlikely such monitor-
ing would remain a secret for long. Under these circumstances, nannies would be much
more careful to be on their best behavior. This would potentially have the long-term ef-
fects of reducing the instances of child abuse and increasing the peace of mind of parents.
On the other hand, the harms of the monitoring would be significant in terms of increas-
ing the stress and reducing the job satisfaction of nannies and child care providers. After
all, who wants to be monitored constantly? These negative aspects of the job could lead
to an increased turnover rate of nannies. Less experienced nannies might well provide
lower-quality care to the babies they tend. The harms of having all parents monitoring
their nannies or child care providers appear to be greater than the benefits. Hence we
conclude it is wrong for the Sullivans to secretly monitor their nanny.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY EVALUATION
Social contract theory emphasizes the adoption of rules that rational people would agree
to accept because they are to everyone’s mutual benefit, as long as everyone else follows
the rules as well. As we discussed earlier in this section, privacy is a prudential right.
It is reasonable for society to give privacy to people in their own homes, and it is also
reasonable for family members within each home to give each other some privacy as
well. The nanny wouldn’t expect her interactions with the baby in a park or a grocery
store to be private, but it is reasonable for her to expect privacy when taking care of the
baby inside the Sullivans’ home. Hence the Sullivans’ decision to secretly monitor the
nanny was wrong because it violated her right to privacy.
KANTIAN EVALUATION
Let’s consider the morality of acting according to the rule: “An employer may secretly
monitor the work of an employee who works with vulnerable people.” To evaluate
the rule using the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we universalize it.
What would happen if every employer secretly monitored the work of employees who
worked with vulnerable people? If that were the case, then employees who worked
238 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
with vulnerable populations would have no expectation of privacy, and it would be
impossible for employers to secretly monitor their work. Hence the proposed rule is self-
defeating, and it would be wrong to act according to this rule.
We can also evaluate this situation using the second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative. As parents, the Sullivans are responsible for the well-being of their baby. In
order to be more confident that their baby is safe in the care of the nanny, they choose
to secretly observe the behavior of the nanny. The observation is the means to their
desired end of having their baby well cared for. The nanny naturally assumes that her
interactions with the baby in the Sullivan residence are private. By not disclosing to the
nanny the fact that she is being watched remotely, the Sullivans have treated the nanny
as a means to an end. Hence the action of the Sullivans is wrong.
VIRTUE ETHICS EVALUATION
As parents, the Sullivans are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their daughter.
Rather than put their daughter in a day care facility they considered to be second-rate,
they decided to spend more money and hire a personal nanny to care for her. That
action is characteristic of good parents who put their children’s needs before their own.
When the Sullivans heard about abusive nannies, it is only natural that they would
become worried about their daughter’s welfare, particularly because as a baby she is truly
defenseless and unable to communicate with them. According to virtue theory, parents
should be partial toward their children. We can view the Sullivans’ decision to use the
webcam as an action characteristic of good parents. However, we would also expect that
once the Sullivans are reassured they hired a fine nanny who is taking good care of their
infant daughter, they would trust the nanny and discontinue the secret monitoring.
SUMMARY
From the points of view of rule utilitarianism, social contract theory, and Kantianism,
we have concluded that it is wrong for the Sullivans to secretly monitor how well their
nanny takes care of their baby. However, from the perspective of virtue ethics, the action
of the Sullivans is characteristic of good parents.
5.3 Information Disclosures
As we go about our lives, we leave behind an electronic trail of our activities, thanks to
computerized databases. Some events result in the creation of public records. A pub-
lic record contains information about an incident or action reported to a government
agency for the purpose of informing the public [22]. Examples of public records are birth
certificates, marriage licenses, motor vehicle records, criminal records, deeds to prop-
erty, and the salaries of state employees (including your professor, if you are studying at
a public institution). Making government records public is one way to hold government
agencies accountable for their actions and help ensure that all citizens are being treated
fairly.
When public records were written on paper and kept in county courthouse base-
ments, they were relatively hard to retrieve. Computerized databases and the Internet
5.3 Information Disclosures 239
have made accessing many public records quick and inexpensive, and there are a lot of
good purposes to which we can put all that information. Before a school hires a teacher,
it can check the candidate’s criminal record to ensure there are no convictions for child
abuse. Before a transit system hires a bus driver, it can check the applicant’s driving
record. Before moving to a new city, you can check out the crime rate of the neighbor-
hood you’re interested in.
Other uses of public records may not be as laudable. Thanks to information tech-
nology, it’s easier than ever to learn a lot about someone’s wealth. For most people, their
home is their principal asset. As we’ve already mentioned, you can visit Zillow.com, type
in the address of someone’s house, and quickly learn Zillow’s estimate of the house’s
worth, based on information about the size of the house (a public record), the selling
price of the house (a public record), and recent sales of similar houses in the neighbor-
hood (also public records).
Private organizations, too, maintain extensive records of our activities. Databases
store information about the purchases we make with our credit cards, the groceries we
buy at a discount with our loyalty cards, the DVDs we rent, the calls we make with our
cell phones, and much more. The companies collecting this information use it to bill
us. They also can use this information to serve us better. For example, Amazon uses
information about book purchases to build profiles of its customers. With a customer
profile, Amazon can recommend other books the customer may be interested in buying.
On the other hand, companies may share information about our purchases with other
companies that then send us junk mail for products we have no interest in buying.
Often people voluntarily disclose information to private organizations. Product reg-
istration forms and contest entries often ask consumers to reveal a great deal of personal
information. I once received a product preference survey from Procter & Gamble; it said,
in part:
Your opinions matter to us. That’s why we’ve selected you to participate in one of
the most important consumer research surveys we’ll do this year. Whether or not
you have completed one of our surveys in the past, you can help us continue to
create the products that meet your needs. Simply answer the following questions,
provide your name and address, and mail it back to us. That way, we will be able to
contact you if there are any special offers that might be of interest to you.
The questionnaire asked about my family’s use of nasal inhalants, coffee, peanut
butter, orange juice, laundry detergent, fabric softener, household cleaner, deodorant,
toothpaste, detergents, skin care and hair care products, cosmetics, mouthwash, diapers,
laxatives, and disposable briefs. It provided a list of 60 leisure activities, ranging from
various sports to travel to gambling, and asked me to choose the three activities most
important to my family. It also asked my date of birth, the sex and age of everyone living
in my home, my occupation, the credit cards we used, and our annual family income. If
I had returned the questionnaire (which I didn’t), Procter & Gamble would have been
free to use this information any way it wished.
Many of us voluntarily share information about our activities by posting messages
and uploading photos to social network sites like Facebook. These sites make it easy to
240 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
communicate with many friends and acquaintances at once, but this information can be
put to other purposes as well [23]. Social Intelligence Corporation provides employers
with background checks on potential employees by searching the Internet for posts and
photos by the job candidates that reveal negative activities specified by the employer,
such as “racist remarks or activities, sexually explicit photos or videos, and illegal activity
such as drug use” [24].
Recall the perspective that privacy is a “zone of inaccessability.” Using this defini-
tion, we can say that our personal information is private to the extent that we can control
who has access to it. In some settings we expect to have much more control over our per-
sonal information than in other venues. For example, we have much more control over
who takes our picture when we’re at home than when we’re at a football game. Hence our
expectations about the privacy of our personal information depend on the situation. In
this rest of this section, we survey a variety of ways in which private organizations col-
lect and use personal information, starting with situations in which most of us would
assume to have less privacy and finishing with situations in which we would expect to
have much more privacy.
5.3.1 Facebook Tags
In the Facebook social network, a tag is a label identifying a person in a photo. When
you post a photo to Facebook, you can tag the people in the photo who are on your list
of Facebook friends. In a similar way, any of your Facebook friends can tag you in photos
they post to the site. People tag photos in Facebook an average of 100 million times per
day [25].
In December 2010, Facebook introduced a new time-saving feature called Tag Sug-
gestions. When a Facebook user adds a new photo, Facebook uses facial recognition
software to suggest the name of the friend appearing in the photo. In June 2011, the Elec-
tronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint about Facebook Tag Sugges-
tions with the Federal Trade Commission [26]. EPIC claimed that in order to develop its
facial recognition technology, Facebook gathered facial data from users’ photos without
their consent. Others raised the concern that the introduction of an automatic tagging
feature would increase the chance that photos would be improperly tagged, which could
cause a problem if the photos were not complimentary [27].
5.3.2 Enhanced 911 Services
All cell phone providers in the United States are required by law to be able to track
the locations of active cell phone users to within 100 meters. The safety benefit of this
capability is obvious. Emergency response teams can reach people in distress who have
dialed 911, even if they are unable to speak or do not know exactly where they are.
The ability to identify the location of active cell phone users has other benefits. For
example, it makes it easier for cell phone companies to identify where signal strength is
weak and coverage needs to be improved.
The downside of enhanced 911 service is a potential loss of privacy. Because it is
possible to track the location of active cell phone users, what happens if information is
5.3 Information Disclosures 241
sold or shared? Suppose you call your employer and tell him you are too sick to come
into work. Your boss is suspicious, since this is the third Friday this winter you’ve called
in sick. Your employer pays your cell phone provider and discovers that you made your
call from a ski resort [28].
5.3.3 Rewards or Loyalty Programs
Rewards or loyalty programs for shoppers have been around for more than 100 years.
Your grandparents may remember using S&H Green Stamps, the most popular rewards
program in the United States from the 1950s through the 1970s. Shoppers would collect
Green Stamps with purchases, paste them into booklets, and redeem the booklets by
shopping in the Sperry & Hutchinson catalog for household items.
Today many shoppers take advantage of rewards programs sponsored by grocery
stores. Card-carrying members of the store’s “club” save money on many of their pur-
chases, either through coupons or instant discounts at the cash register. The most signif-
icant difference between the Green Stamps program and a contemporary shopper’s club
is that today’s rewards programs are run by computers that record every purchase. Com-
panies can use information about the buying habits of particular customers to provide
them with individualized service.
For example, ShopRite grocery stores have computerized shopping carts. The shop-
ping cart has a card reader and an LCD screen. Customers identify themselves by swiping
their loyalty card through the card reader. A computer taps into a database with the cus-
tomer’s buying history and uses this information to guide the customer to frequently
purchased products. As the cart passes through the aisles, pop-up ads display items the
computer predicts the customer may be interested in purchasing [29].
Critics of grocery club cards say that the problem is not that card users pay less for
their groceries, but that those who don’t use cards pay more. They give examples of club-
member prices being equivalent to the regular product price at stores without customer
loyalty programs [30].
Some consumers respond to the potential loss of privacy by giving phony personal
information when they apply for these cards. Others take it a step further by regularly
exchanging their cards with those held by other people [31].
Other consumers have learned how to “game” the system. One shopper noticed
that by alternating her ground coffee purchases between Starbucks brand and Dunkin’
Donuts brand, she got better prices than when she just bought Starbucks [32].
5.3.4 Body Scanners
(This section describes scanners designed to take a person’s measurements. Advanced
imaging technology scanners used at airport security checkpoints are discussed in Sec-
tion 6.11.2.)
Looking good is important to many, if not most, of us. Computer technology
is making it possible for us to save time shopping and find clothes that fit us better
(Figure 5.2).
242 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
Figure 5.2 A computer takes a customer’s measurements. (AP photo/Richard Drew)
In some stores in the United Kingdom, you can enter a booth, strip to your under-
garments, and be scanned by a computer, which produces a three-dimensional model
of your body. The computer uses this information to recommend which pairs of jeans
ought to fit you the best. You can then sit in front of a computer screen and preview what
various pairs of jeans will look like on you. When you have narrowed down your search
to a few particular brands and sizes, you can actually try on the jeans.
Body scans are also being used to produce custom-made clothing. At Brooks
Brothers stores in the United States, customers who have been scanned can purchase
suits tailored to their particular physiques [33].
5.3.5 RFID Tags
Imagine getting up in the morning, walking into the bathroom, and seeing a message on
the medicine cabinet’s computer screen warning you that your bottle of aspirin is close
to its expiration date. Later that day you are shopping for a new pair of pants. As you
try them on, a screen in the dressing room displays other pieces of clothing that would
complement your selection.
These scenarios are possible today thanks to a technology called RFID, short for
radio frequency identification. An RFID is a tiny wireless transmitter. Manufacturers are
replacing bar codes with RFIDs, because they give more information about the product
and are easier to scan. An RFID can contain specific information about the particular
item to which it is attached (or embedded), and a scanner can read an RFID from six
5.3 Information Disclosures 243
Figure 5.3 Employees take inventory more quickly and make fewer errors when items are
marked with RFID tags. (© Marc F. Henning/Alamy)
feet away. When bar codes are replaced by RFIDs, checkouts are quicker and companies
track their inventory more accurately (Figure 5.3).
However, because RFIDs are not turned off when an item is purchased, the new
technology has raised privacy concerns. Imagine a workplace full of RFID scanners. A
scanner in your cubicle enables a monitoring system to associate you with the tags in
your clothes. Another scanner picks up your presence at the water cooler. The next thing
you know, your boss has called you in for a heart-to-heart talk about how many breaks
you’re taking. Some privacy advocates say consumers should have a way to remove or
disable RFIDs in the products they purchase [34, 35].
5.3.6 Implanted Chips
In Taiwan, every domesticated dog must contain a microchip implant identifying its
owner and residence [36]. The microchip, about the size of a grain of rice, is implanted
into the dog’s ear using a syringe. When a dog gets lost, the authorities can easily retrieve
the address and return the pet to its owner.
Verichip Corporation created an RFID tag approved for use in humans. The com-
pany claimed that 2,000 people worldwide had a Verichip implant. The most common
reason for getting an implanted RFID chip was to allow doctors to learn about the
medical conditions of unconscious patients [37]. However, in some trendy European
nightclubs, patrons have used their implanted RFID chips as in-house “debit cards” for
purchasing food and drinks [38]. After some highly publicized incidents of abducted or
missing children, the media have reported parents ruminating on the idea of implanting
microchip tracking devices in their kids [39, 40].
244 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
5.3.7 OnStar
OnStar Corporation manufactures a communication system incorporated into an auto-
mobile’s rear-view mirror. OnStar provides emergency, security, navigation, and diag-
nostics services to its subscribers. For example, a driver who runs out of gas can push
the Blue OnStar button to initiate a conversation with an OnStar representative. The
driver does not have to know his or her exact location, because the system automat-
ically sends the GPS location of the automobile to OnStar, which can send help. The
driver does not always need to initiate the communication with OnStar representatives.
For example, whenever the air bags deploy on an OnStar-equipped vehicle, the system
automatically communicates the location of the vehicle to an OnStar center, which can
initiate a 911 call.
The capabilities of the OnStar system were dramatically revealed in Visalia, Califor-
nia, in October 2009, when a man with a sawed-off shotgun ordered two occupants of
a 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe to get out of their vehicle. He took their money and drove off
in the SUV. After the police got the victim’s permission to track down the stolen vehicle,
OnStar provided the police with its current location. When police cars began to tail the
Tahoe, its driver sped up. At this point the OnStar service center issued a command to
the SUV that electronically disabled the gas pedal, causing the Tahoe to gradually slow
to a halt and allowing the police to apprehend the carjacker. Visalia Police Chief Colleen
Mestas complimented the new technology for preventing a potentially dangerous high-
speed car chase [41].
Because OnStar has the ability to track the location of OnStar-equipped vehicles
and listen to conversations happening within them, some privacy advocates have ex-
pressed concerns about possible abuses that could occur if this information were shared
with law enforcement agencies. For example, suppose the police were looking for sus-
pects in an unsolved crime. Should they have the right to gather information from
OnStar about all OnStar-equipped vehicles that were in the area at the time of the
crime?
In an hour-long Web chat on the General Motors FastLane site in November 2009,
OnStar’s Jane Speelman responded to these concerns. According to Speelman, OnStar
does not continuously monitor the location of OnStar-equipped vehicles, OnStar does
not provide information about the speed of vehicles to law enforcement agencies, and
OnStar representatives cannot listen to conversations inside a vehicle without alerting
the vehicle’s occupants [42].
5.3.8 Automobile “Black Boxes”
You probably know about airplane flight data recorders, also called “black boxes,” which
provide information useful in postcrash investigations. Did you know that modern au-
tomobiles also come equipped with a “black box”? A microprocessor attached to the car’s
air bag records information about the speed of the car, the amount of pressure being put
on the brake pedal, and whether the seat belts are connected. After a collision, investiga-
tors can retrieve the microprocessor from the automobile and view data collected in the
five seconds before the accident [43].
5.3 Information Disclosures 245
5.3.9 Medical Records
The change from paper-based to electronic medical records has the potential to lower
the costs and improve the quality of medical care by making it quicker and cheaper for
information about patients to be shared among nurses, physicians, and other caregivers.
The US government has been promoting the conversion to electronic medical records
as one way to rein in the rapid increase in health care costs. The Health Information
Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act calls for doctors and
hospitals to move from paper records to electronic records by 2015.
However, once an individual’s entire medical history is consolidated in a database
accessible by many, it can be more difficult to control how that information is dissemi-
nated, with potentially significant consequences. An employer may choose to pass over
a job candidate who has had serious medical problems [44]. A woman who has success-
fully completed a treatment program for drug addiction may be discriminated against if
information about her former drug use is revealed.
In November 2003, Florida state law enforcement officials seized the medical
records of radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, as part of an investigation to determine
whether Limbaugh had illegally obtained prescription pain medications from several
doctors. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in partial
support of Limbaugh, arguing that law enforcement officials acted improperly in ob-
taining a warrant that allowed them to seize all of Limbaugh’s medical records, not just
those relevant to the criminal investigation [45].
5.3.10 Digital Video Recorders
TiVo, Inc. is a well-known manufacturer of digital video recorders. TiVo provides a
service that allows its subscribers to more easily record programs they are interested
in watching later. For example, with a single command a subscriber can instruct the
TiVo to record every episode of a TV series. TiVo collects detailed information about
the viewing habits of its users. Because the system monitors the activities of the users
second by second, its data are more valuable than those provided by other services. For
example, TiVo’s records show that 66 percent of the ads shown during primetime on
broadcast networks are skipped [46].
5.3.11 Cookies and Flash Cookies
A cookie is a file placed on your computer’s hard drive by a Web server. The file contains
information about your visits to a Web site. Cookies can contain login names and
passwords, product preferences, and the contents of virtual shopping carts. Web sites use
cookies to provide you with personalized services, such as custom Web pages. Instead of
asking you to type in the same information multiple times, a Web site can retrieve that
information from a cookie. Most Web sites do not ask for permission before creating
a cookie on your hard drive. You can configure your Web browser to alert you when a
cookie is being placed on your computer, or you can set your Web browser to refuse to
accept any cookies. However, some Web sites cannot be accessed by browsers that block
cookies.
246 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
In recent years Web sites have begun using another kind of cookie called a flash
cookie, which is a file placed on your computer’s hard drive by a Web server running the
Adobe Flash Player. Two attributes of flash cookies have raised privacy concerns. First, a
flash cookie can hold 25 times as much information as a browser cookie. Second, flash
cookies are not controlled by the browser’s privacy controls. Some Web sites take advan-
tage of this loophole and use flash cookies as a way of backing up ordinary cookies. That
way, if you delete the browser cookie associated with a Web site, it can be “respawned”
from the flash cookie. A survey by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley,
revealed that more than half of the 100 most popular Web sites use flash cookies, but
only four of them mention flash cookies in their privacy policies [47].
5.4 Data Mining
In the previous section we surveyed a few of the many ways that companies collect
information on people’s daily activities. In this section we look at how this information
has itself become a commodity that companies buy and sell in order to provide more
personalized services to their existing customers and to target potential customers more
accurately.
5.4.1 Data Mining Defined
Before you use a grocery store’s loyalty card, you have to spend some time filling out an
application that asks for a lot of personal information, such as your name, address, and
phone number. After the store has processed your application, using your loyalty card is
easy. You just swipe your card or type in your phone number, and the register recognizes
you as a customer and gives you the appropriate discounts on your food purchases. At
the same time, information about your purchases is entered into a database.
A record in a database records a single transaction, such as a particular item you
purchased at the grocery store. A database record is like a single snapshot of a person. It
tells you something about the person, but in isolation its value is limited. Data mining
is the process of searching through many records in one or more databases looking
for patterns or relationships. Data mining is a way to generate new information by
combining facts found in multiple transactions, and it can also be a way to predict future
events. By drawing upon large numbers of records, data mining allows an organization
to build an accurate profile of an individual from a myriad of snapshots.
Google’s personalized search and collaborative filtering are two examples of how
companies are using data mining to create more personal relationships with their cus-
tomers [48].
GOOGLE’S PERSONALIZED SEARCH
Google keeps track of your search queries and the Web pages you have clicked. When you
type in a new query, it can use this information to infer what you are interested in and
return pages more likely to be what you are seeking. For example, the word “bass” has
multiple meanings, but if you have a history of queries and page clicks related to fishing,
but not music, that can help the search engine return the most appropriate pages.
5.4 Data Mining 247
Google is able to personalize search results whether or not you have a Google
account. If you are signed in to Google, the search engine examines your Web history
to personalize the search results. This information is held indefinitely, unless you delete
your Web history. If you are not signed in, Google creates a cookie linked to your
computer’s browser, and it stores records of all queries associated with that cookie, as
well as results that have been clicked, for up to 180 days [49].
COLLABORATIVE FILTERING
Collaborative filtering algorithms draw upon information about the preferences of a
large number of people to predict what an individual may enjoy. An organization per-
forming collaborative filtering may determine people’s preferences explicitly, through
rankings, or implicitly, by tracking their purchases. The filtering algorithm looks for pat-
terns in the data. Perhaps many people who purchase peanut butter also purchase jam.
If a new customer buys a jar of peanut butter, the software may instruct the register to
print out a discount coupon for a particular brand of jam along with the sales receipt.
Collaborative filtering software is also used by online retailers and movie sites to make
recommendations [50].
5.4.2 Opt-In versus Opt-Out Policies
We have just examined a few ways in which a company that collects information about its
customers’ activities can use this information to provide its customers with a more per-
sonalized service. It only makes sense that if several companies pooled the information
they had on the same person, they could construct a more complete electronic profile
that would lead to new insights into products or services that person might wish to pur-
chase. Do companies have the right to buy and sell information about their customers’
transactions, or should the person buying a product or service have the right to control
the information about that transaction?
Consider the following hypothetical example. Dr. Knowitall, a computer science
professor, takes his broken computer to the Computer Shop so that 18-year-old Andy
can fix it for him. Dr. Knowitall is embarrassed that he can’t fix the computer himself,
and he doesn’t want anybody to find out that he must pay someone to fix it. Dr. Know-
itall certainly isn’t going to tell anyone, but does he have the right to prevent Andy from
telling anyone? Or maybe Andy wants to keep the transaction a secret, because he’s em-
barrassed it took him so long to fix the computer and he doesn’t want anyone to find out
he was in over his head. Does Andy have the right to keep Dr. Knowitall from talking
about it?
It seems that neither person can claim the right to control information about this
transaction. Since information about the transaction becomes public information if
either party discloses it, keeping the transaction private is more difficult (hence more
valuable) than making it public.
If Dr. Knowitall wants to keep the transaction private, he should be willing to pay
for it. He may tell Andy, “I’ll give you an extra 20 bucks if you promise you won’t tell
anybody that you fixed my computer.” At this point, Dr. Knowitall has purchased control
over the information about this transaction. Andy is obliged to keep his mouth shut,
248 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
not because of Dr. Knowitall’s right to privacy but because of his right to expect the
agreement to be upheld.
What rules should govern the sharing of information collected by organizations
selling products or services? Two fundamentally different policies are called opt-in and
opt-out.
The opt-in policy requires the consumer to explicitly give permission for the organi-
zation to share the information with another organization. Opt-in policies are preferred
by privacy advocates.
The opt-out policy requires the consumer to explicitly forbid an organization from
sharing information with other organizations. Direct marketing associations prefer the
opt-out policy because opt-in is a barrier for new businesses. New businesses do not have
the resources to go out and collect all the information they need to target their mailings
to the correct individuals. In an opt-out environment, most people will not go through
the effort required to actually remove themselves from mailing lists. Hence it is easier
for new businesses to get access to the mailing lists they need to succeed [51]. Another
argument for opt-out is that companies have the right to control information about the
transactions they have made. Information is a valuable commodity. An opt-in policy
takes this commodity away from companies.
At this time opt-out policies are far more common than opt-in policies. Information
about customers has itself become a commodity. Organizations sell or exchange infor-
mation with other organizations (Figure 5.4). This is a common way for organizations
to gather large databases of information they can mine.
For example, a company selling time-share condominiums purchases from a hotel
chain the names and addresses of people who have vacationed in a resort area in the past
two years. From another organization it purchases a database that gives the approximate
annual household income of a family, based on that family’s nine-digit ZIP code. Com-
bining these lists allows the time-share agency to target people most likely to have both
the interest and the financial resources to purchase a share of a vacation condominium.
It uses direct mail to send brochures to these people.
5.4.3 Examples of Data Mining
Data mining is put to a wide variety of uses in modern society. Here are a few examples.
CREDIT REPORTS
Credit reports are a great example of how information about customers has itself become
a commodity. A credit bureau is a company that keeps track of an individual’s assets,
debts, and history of paying bills and repaying loans, using this information to deter-
mine the creditworthiness of that person. Credit bureaus sell credit reports to banks,
credit card companies, and other potential lenders.
Thanks to the national credit bureau system, you can get a credit card from a bank
or store that you’ve never done business with. When you want to borrow money to
purchase a home, you don’t have to go to your local bank. You can get the money from
a bank across the country that trusts you to repay the loan because of your high credit
5.4 Data Mining 249
X Corp. Y Corp. Z Corp.
W Corp.
Su
g
g
estio
n
!
In
cen
tive!
Service!
Data mining
(secondary use)
Direct mail
BUY!
Figure 5.4 Companies use computers to record information about their customers and
their buying habits. They analyze this information to suggest additional purchases, provide
incentives, and deliver better service. They may also sell this information to other companies.
By combining information from various sources, a company can build sophisticated profiles
of individuals and target its direct mail advertising to those people most likely to be interested
in its products.
score. Competition among banks leads to lower interest rates, a definite advantage for
consumers.
Of course, if you have a poor record of paying bills on time and repaying loans, your
credit score will be low. People with low credit scores have a harder time getting loans
and pay higher interest rates on the loans they do get.
A poor credit report can come back to haunt people in ways they might not have
anticipated. Many employers conduct a credit check late in the job interview process as a
way of double-checking a candidate before making a job offer. A credit report received by
an employer doesn’t give the applicant’s credit score, but it does list the applicant’s debts.
Critics of the use of credit reports when making hiring decisions have stated that these
reports can cause employers to shy away from minorities and those who are currently
out of work. “I think the assumption that is made is, if somebody is behind on their
bills, then it tells something about their integrity or responsibility, but in many cases
that assumption is flawed,” said Sarah Crawford of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law [52].
TARGETED DIRECT MAIL
Years ago direct mail marketing meant mass mailings of advertisements. Today the trend
is toward targeted direct mail, in which businesses mail their advertisements only to the
leads most likely to be interested in purchasing their products. Customized mailing lists
250 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
are available from a variety of sources, including Experian (one of the three largest credit
report companies in the United States). From its database of more than 200 million
consumers, Experian can provide mailing lists of people in a particular geographical
area who meet certain criteria, including new parents, people who have just moved, new
homeowners, renters with estimated incomes greater than $100,000, health enthusiasts,
sports enthusiasts, and “green” consumers.
A good example of direct mail marketing is Target’s efforts to reach pregnant
women. Retailers know that the habits of shoppers—where they buy certain goods and
the brands they select—are difficult to change. However, when people graduate from
college or move to a new town or get married, their shopping habits are more malleable.
New parents are particularly open to changes in their shopping habits. For that reason
Target asked its statisticians to find ways to predict which of Target’s women customers
were in their second trimester of pregnancy. The company’s goal was to use direct mail
offers to get these women into the habit of buying a wide variety of items at Target stores.
Target’s statisticians found customers who had set up baby-shower registries at Tar-
get, then looked back in time to discover what products those women had bought when
they were in their second trimester. The analysts found about two dozen predictors that
a woman is three to six months’ pregnant. Tip-offs included purchasing large amounts
of unscented lotion, buying extra-large bags of cotton balls, and spending money on
nutritional supplements, such as zinc and magnesium. The statisticians determined that
they could predict with high confidence whether or not a woman was in her second
trimester of pregnancy by examining her purchases of these “predictor” products. For
those women who were predicted to be pregnant, the statisticians showed they could
predict their expected delivery date within a relatively small window of time.
Target used the algorithms developed by its statisticians to mine its extensive data-
bases of customer purchases. The company identified tens of thousands of women who
were probably pregnant and sent them direct mail advertising. The marketing executives
were savvy enough to know that the women receiving these promotions might be upset
if they discovered Target knew they were pregnant. In order not to tip the women off,
Target made sure that the mailings to the women included offers on wineglasses, lawn
mowers, and other unrelated items mixed in with the offers for diapers, baby clothes,
and cribs [53].
MICROTARGETING
Since 2004 direct marketing based on data mining has become part of US presiden-
tial campaigns [54]. In a technique called microtargeting, a campaign combines data
about voter registration, voting frequency, and contributions with consumer data and
information available from a geographic information system to gain insights into which
candidate the voter is likely to favor. The campaign then uses direct mailings, email, text
messages, or home visits to encourage likely supporters to vote.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Data mining can be surprisingly powerful. Suppose a government agency managing
tollbooths were to sell information records of the following form:
5.4 Data Mining 251
〈transponder number〉 〈date〉 〈time〉 〈location〉 〈charge〉
The agency does not reveal the names of the owners of the cars, so it believes it is pro-
tecting their anonymity. However, many people have an account set up so that their
tollbooth payments are automatically charged to their credit cards. If a credit card com-
pany buys these records from the tollbooth agency, it can match the date, time, and
amount of the tollbooth payments with the date, time, and charge on its credit cards
to determine the identity of the person driving a vehicle with a particular transponder
number. Once this has been done, the credit card company can figure out which cus-
tomers are driving the most miles and are likely to purchase new cars more frequently.
It can then sell this information to banks interested in soliciting automobile loan appli-
cations [28].
PRICE CUSTOMIZATION
Retailers are using information gathered about their customers to offer different prices
to different people. You read about this practice earlier in the chapter in the description
of grocery store loyalty cards. Another example: data aggregation firms sell profiles of
shoppers to some online merchants, who use this information to determine who should
be offered a discount and who should be charged full price and offered more expensive
options [55].
5.4.4 Social Network Analysis
A promising new area in data mining is the incorporation of information collected from
social networks. Here are a few examples of how organizations have used social network
analysis to meet their objectives [56]:
. In ultracompetitive cell phone markets, it’s crucial that companies keep their sub-
scribers from defecting to rival firms. Bharti Airtel, India’s largest cell phone com-
pany, uses software to analyze phone records and identify “influencers,” those sub-
scribers most likely to be able to persuade their friends and family members to
follow them when they switch carriers. It then offers the influencers special pro-
motions to keep them loyal. How can Bharti Airtel identify influencers from their
phone records? They are the ones whose calls are quickly returned, who call other
people late at night more frequently, and who get more calls on Friday afternoons
when parties are often organized.
. Police in Richmond, Virginia, monitor Facebook and Twitter messages to determine
where parties are happening. Data-mining software identifies the party locations
mentioned most frequently. By deploying officers more strategically on big party
nights, the department saves about $15,000 on overtime pay, and the community
has seen a big drop in criminal activity (Figure 5.5).
. Banks are combining data collected from social networks with credit card state-
ments and other information to evaluate the riskiness of loans. For example, some-
one applying for a loan to start a new business may be a bad risk if the proposed
business has no connection with their social network, educational background,
travel history, or previous business dealings.
252 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
Figure 5.5 Some police departments are monitoring Facebook and Twitter to identify lo-
cations of big parties and deploy officers accordingly. (© Allen Sullivan/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
5.5 Examples of Consumer Backlash
Advances in information technology have led to a drop in the cost of acquiring infor-
mation. Meanwhile, the value of information continues to rise, as organizations refine
their data-mining techniques. The result of these trends is that corporations have an in-
centive to acquire more information, making it more difficult for individuals to protect
their privacy [20]. Still, people can and do fight back when they feel a corporation has
gone too far.
5.5.1 Marketplace: Households
Lotus Development Corporation teamed up with credit reporting company Equifix to
develop a database on 120 million people and a program that would allow the user
to produce direct mailing lists based on various criteria, such as household income.
Lotus hoped to sell the package, which it called “Marketplace: Households,” to small
businesses. Soon after the product was announced in the spring of 1990, there was a
considerable backlash. Consumers complained loudly and vigorously, with more than
30,000 letters, phone calls, and emails. Lotus dropped plans to sell the CD [57].
How times have changed! A little more than two decades later, credit reporting
company Experian has a thriving business selling direct mailing lists based on much
5.5 Examples of Consumer Backlash 253
more detailed information about consumers (as you read in the discussion of targeted
direct mail in Section 5.4.3).
5.5.2 Facebook Beacon
In November 2007, Facebook announced Beacon, “a core element of the Facebook Ads
system for connecting businesses with users and targeting advertising to the audiences
they want” [58]. Beacon promised to be an important way for Facebook to earn ad-
vertising revenue. Fandango, eBay, and 42 other online businesses paid Facebook to do
“word-of-mouth” advertising of their products and services through Beacon. For exam-
ple, after a Facebook user bought movie tickets on Fandango, Fandango would send this
information to Facebook so that Facebook could broadcast it to that user’s friends.
Beacon was based on an opt-out policy, meaning that it was in effect unless a user
explicitly asked to be excluded. That decision was good for Facebook because advertising
revenue depends on the size of the audience. However, the decision to make the system
opt-out upset many Facebook users, who were unaware of Beacon until it revealed
information they thought was private. For example, after Sean Lane purchased what was
supposed to be a surprise Christmas gift, the following news headline was broadcast to
his wife and more than 700 other people in his Facebook network: “Sean Lane bought
14K White Gold 1/5 ct Diamond Eternity Flower Ring from overstock.com” [59].
Beacon soon attracted strong criticism from a variety of sources. A spokesman for
MoveOn.org said, “Sites like Facebook are revolutionizing how we communicate with
one another and organize around issues together in a 21st century democracy. The
question is: Will corporate advertisers get to write the rules of the Internet or will these
new social networks protect our basic rights, like privacy?”[59]. MoveOn.org created an
online group calling for Beacon to require an explicit opt-in from users, and it attracted
the support of more than 50,000 Facebook users. A few weeks later, Facebook decided
to switch to an opt-in policy for Beacon. “I’m not proud of the way we’ve handled this
situation, and I know we can do better,” said Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook [60].
5.5.3 Netflix Prize
Netflix is a popular subscription service for movies and television shows. An important
feature of Netflix is its movie recommendation service. After a subscriber has rated
several movies, Netflix uses a collaborative filtering algorithm to predict how well the
subscriber will like other movies in its collection. It then recommends to the subscriber
movies the subscriber is likely to enjoy.
In 2006 Netflix offered a $1 million prize to any group that could come up with a
collaborative filtering algorithm that was at least 10 percent better than Netflix’s own
algorithm at predicting user ratings for movies. Netflix released more than 100 million
movie ratings from nearly half a million customers, stripped of private information in
an attempt to make the records anonymous. Each movie rating consisted of four pieces
of information—subscriber, movie, date of grade, and grade—where each subscriber
was represented by an integer.
254 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
However, a group of researchers at the University of Texas-Austin demonstrated
how it was possible, with just a little information about movies seen by an individual,
to identify the movie rating records associated with that person, revealing potentially
sensitive information, such as their political leanings or sexual orientation [61]. The rev-
elation that the release of “anonymous” movie ratings information could compromise
the privacy of Netflix subscribers led to a complaint by the US Federal Trade Commis-
sion and a lawsuit. On March 12, 2010, Netflix announced that it was canceling a Netflix
Prize sequel [62].
5.5.4 Malls Track Shoppers’ Cell Phones
On Black Friday, 2011 two malls in the United States—the Promenade Temecula in Cal-
ifornia and the Short Pump Town Center in Virginia—began recording the movement
of shoppers through the stores by tracking the locations of their cell phones. The malls
hoped to be able to answer such questions as these:
. How much time do people spend in store X?
. How many people who shop at store Y also shop at store Z?
. Are there unpopular areas of the mall that do not attract enough shoppers?
Small signs posted throughout the malls informed shoppers of the study. It let them
know that the data were being collected anonymously; the mall assigned an ID code
to each phone and tracked the movements of the phone without knowing anything
about the person carrying the phone. To prevent data about their movements from being
collected, shoppers had to turn off their cell phones.
The malls had planned to continue their study through the Christmas buying sea-
son, but an intervention by Senator Charles Schumer of New York prompted them to
stop collecting data after only three days. The senator issued a statement that said, in
part, “Personal cell phones are just that—personal. If retailers want to tap into your
phone to see what your shopping patterns are, they can ask you for your permission
to do so” [63].
Sharon Biggar, CEO of Path Intelligence, the British firm that made the cell phone
tracking equipment, responded to the senator’s statements by pointing out that online
retailers track far more information about their customers’ shopping habits without
asking them for permission. “We are simply seeking to create a level playing field for
offline retailers,” she said [63].
5.5.5 iPhone Apps Uploading Address Books
In February 2012, programmer Arun Thampi in Singapore discovered that the app for
the social networking site Path was uploading his iPhone’s address book without first
getting his permission. Thampi wrote on his blog, “I’m not insinuating that Path is doing
something nefarious with my address book but I feel quite violated that my address book
is being held remotely on a third-party service” [64].
David Morin, the CEO of Path, initially replied to Thampi’s post by saying that the
purpose of collecting the information was to make it easier for people to connect with
Summary 255
family and friends on Path and to let them know when people in their address book
join Path. Morin’s statement also labeled Path’s actions as an “industry best practice.”
However, it didn’t take long for the Internet community to weigh in and point out that
Apple’s guidelines require apps to ask for permission before uploading information from
address books. Facing a storm of negative publicity, Morin issued another statement in
which he apologized for what Path had done, promised that the company would destroy
the data it had collected, and announced that the app would be changed so that it would
no longer upload address books without permission [65].
As the Path controversy erupted, the media pointed out that other popular iPhone
apps, including Twitter, Foursquare, and Instagram, were also gathering information
from address books without asking for permission. All the aforementioned companies
responded by announcing that they, too, would release new versions of their apps that
explicitly asked users for permission before uploading contact information from address
books [66].
5.5.6 Instagram’s Proposed Change to Terms of Service
In December 2012, the popular photo-sharing service Instagram announced an upcom-
ing change in its privacy policy and terms-of-service agreement. The terms-of-service
agreement appeared to change how Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, could
use photographs uploaded by Instagram users. The proposed agreement included the
following statement:
You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username,
likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in
connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compen-
sation to you. [67]
After some legal experts said that the new terms-of-service agreement would allow
Instagram or Facebook to use photos on the Instagram site in advertisements without
compensating or even getting the permission of the person who uploaded them, the
reaction was swift. The hashtag #Boycottinstagram began trending on Twitter, and many
Instagram users downloaded alternative photo-sharing apps. The number of people
using the Pheed and Flickr increased significantly, though the total number of users of
these services remained far below the 100-plus million using Instagram [68].
Responding to the uproar, Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom issued a statement
saying that the new privacy policy and terms-of-service had been misunderstood. He
also announced that the advertising section in the terms of service agreement was being
changed back to its original version [69].
Summary
This chapter has focused on privacy issues brought to the forefront by the introduction
of information technology. The issues of privacy and intellectual property are similar
in the sense that both issues relate to how information ought to be controlled. Mod-
ern information technology makes it much easier to collect and transmit information,
256 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
whether it be a song or a Social Security number. Information has become a valuable
commodity.
Privacy can be seen as a balancing act between the desires of the individual and
the needs of society. The individual seeks to restrict access. Society must decide where to
draw the line between what ought to be private and what should be public. While privacy
has both costs and benefits, the benefits of providing people at least some privacy exceed
the costs. Philosophers disagree whether people have a natural right to privacy, but most
of them agree it is a prudential right. We choose to give each other some privacy for our
mutual good.
There is a tension between privacy and trust. We desire privacy, but we also want
others to trust us. That means we have to reveal some personal information to others.
Sometimes we are required to disclose information that is shared with everyone.
A public record is a piece of information collected by a government agency. Certain
activities, such as getting arrested, buying a house, and having a child, result in the
creation of a public record.
Quite often we participate in activities that result in private organizations collecting
information about us. Data mining is a way for organizations to create a complex pro-
file of a person from a large collection of individual facts. Companies use data mining
to direct advertising to the most promising customers. Data mining is possible because
organizations handling transactions have the right to sell information about these trans-
actions to other organizations.
Whether to provide customers with better service, increase their revenues, or both,
companies frequently push the boundaries of what consumers are willing to tolerate. It
is becoming an increasingly common occurrence that a company is forced to withdraw
a new service because consumers loudly voice privacy concerns.
Review Questions
1. How is WhitePages.com able to produce a map to a person’s home, given only that
person’s phone number?
2. Is privacy a negative right or a positive right?
3. What right is guaranteed by the Third Amendment to the US Constitution?
4. What does it mean when we say that privacy is a prudential right?
5. Give three examples of ways in which an inhabitant of New York City in 2003 has more
privacy than an inhabitant of New York City in 1903.
6. What is a public record?
7. List five pieces of information about a person that are public records.
8. Provide an example (not already given in the book) of a situation where people must
disclose personal information to a private organization in order to get something they
want.
9. What objections were raised to Facebook’s introduction of the Tag Suggestions feature?
Discussion Questions 257
10. Why does enhanced 911 service raise new concerns about privacy?
11. How do companies use loyalty cards to improve their sales?
12. What privacy concerns have been raised with the increasing use of RFID tags?
13. How are RFID tags being used to return pets to owners?
14. What safety and security features are provided by the OnStar system?
15. What are the advantages of consolidating a patient’s medical records into a single data-
base accessible by many? What are the risks associated with this consolidation?
16. In what way do digital video recorders provide viewers with less privacy than videotape
recorders?
17. How could “cookies” created by a Web server affect a computer user’s privacy?
18. What is data mining?
19. What is collaborative filtering? Who uses it?
20. How are some political campaigns using data mining?
21. Explain the difference between an opt-in policy and an opt-out policy.
22. Give three examples of how data mining is being used on information collected from
social networks.
23. What about Facebook Beacon made it so unpopular with Facebook users?
Discussion Questions
24. Do you agree with Scott McNealy’s statement that people have “zero privacy” and should
just get over it?
25. If people value privacy so much, why do they put so much personal information on their
Facebook pages and in their blogs?
26. MIT computer science professor Harold Abelson has said, “In today’s online world,
what your mother told you is true, only more so: people really can judge you by your
friends” [70]. Have you ever been upset or embarrassed by what your friends posted on
Facebook? Are you concerned that people are going to judge you based on what your
friends are posting?
27. Warren and Brandeis argued that it is a violation of a person’s privacy to take their
photograph without their consent.
a. Do you agree with their position? Why or why not?
b. If someone takes your photo, should you just assume it’s going to be posted on the
Web?
28. What is the difference between privacy and anonymity?
29. Canadian science fiction author Robert Sawyer argues that we need privacy because
we have “silly laws” that attempt to make people feel ashamed for indulging in certain
harmless activities. He suggests that if there were no privacy, people would insist these
laws be overturned [71]. Do you agree with Sawyer’s position? Why or why not?
258 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
30. Do you agree with the author that it is more difficult to know whom to trust in modern
society than it was in a small village of a few centuries ago? Why or why not?
31. Critics of grocery club cards give examples of card-member prices being equal to the
regular product price at stores without customer loyalty programs. In other words,
customers who want to get food at the regular price must use the card. Customers pay
extra if they don’t want to use the card. Is it fair for a store to charge us more if we don’t
want to use its loyalty card? Explain your reasoning.
32. Some consumers give phony personal information when they apply for rewards or
loyalty cards at stores. Others take it a step further by regularly exchanging their cards
with those held by other people. Are these people doing anything wrong? Why or why
not?
33. If you voluntarily have your body scanned at a department store, who should own
that information, you or the store? Should the store have the right to sell your body
measurements to other businesses? Explain your reasoning.
34. TiVo keeps detailed information about the television viewing habits of customers who
subscribe to its service.
a. Should your television viewing habits be private information?
b. Do you care if anyone else knows what television shows or pay-per-view movies you
have watched in the past year?
c. Do voters have the right to know the viewing habits of people running for elected
office?
35. You are sitting on a jury. A driver of a car has been charged with manslaughter for killing
a pedestrian. The prosecution presents evidence collected from the automobile’s “black
box” that indicates the car was traveling at 45 miles per hour before the accident. The
defense presents four eyewitnesses to the accident, all of whom testify that the car could
not have been going faster than 30 miles per hour. Are you more inclined to believe the
eyewitnesses or the data collected from the “black box”?
36. Enhanced 911 service allows cell phone companies to track the locations of active cell
phone users within 100 meters.
a. Who should have access to location information collected by cell phone companies?
b. How long should this information be kept?
c. If this information could be used to help you establish an alibi, would you want the
cell phone company to be able to release it to the police?
d. How would you feel about the cell phone company releasing compromising infor-
mation about your whereabouts to the police?
e. Should the police be able to get from the cell phone company the names of all
subscribers using their phones close to a crime scene around the time of the crime?
37. Should parents implant microchips in their children to make them easier to identify in
case they are lost or kidnapped? Why or why not?
38. Before offering a job candidate a position, some potential employers do a criminal
background check of the candidate. What are the pros and cons of this policy?
39. You are setting up an account at a local store that rents outdoor equipment (tents,
backpacks, ski gear, etc.). The clerk asks you to fill out the application form completely.
One of the fields asks for your Social Security number. You leave that field blank. The
In-Class Exercises 259
clerk refuses to accept your application without the field filled in. You ask to speak to
the manager, and the clerk says the manager is not available. Would it be wrong in this
situation to fill in a fake Social Security number?
40. A company discovers that some of its proprietary information has been revealed in
Internet chat rooms. The disclosure of this information results in a substantial drop in
the price of the company’s shares. The company provides Internet service providers with
the screen names of the people who posted the confidential information. It asks the ISPs
to disclose the actual identities of these people. Should the ISPs comply with this request?
Explain your reasoning. (This scenario is adapted from an actual event [72].)
41. Music files downloaded from Apple’s iTunes Store have the purchaser’s name and email
address embedded in them [73]. Conceivably, Apple could use this information to learn
how much file sharing goes on (e.g., it could find out that a month after Ann purchases
a song there are 10 computers that have a copy of Ann’s music file).
By including personal information in music files it sells, has Apple violated the
privacy rights of its customers?
42. Google Glass provides an information display in eyeglass frames, making it easier for
people to view information while on the go. Instead of having to look at the screen of
a tablet or smartphone, Google Glass users can see text and images displayed in their
field of vision. Google Glass also contains a camera and a microphone, enabling users
to take photos and shoot videos from a first-person perspective. Do you believe Google
Glass represents a significant new threat to privacy? Under what circumstances, if any, is
it inappropriate for someone to wear Google Glass?
43. Homer Gaines used Google Glass while making a marriage proposal to his girlfriend,
Tami Stillwell. “I would not have been able to pull off that level of spontaneity with any
other device and instantly share it with the world. Glass gave me the ability to share with
everyone that special moment from my point of view—the surprise on her face, the way
she jumped around, the ring on her finger and the tears of joy in her eyes” [74]. What
are your reactions to this episode?
44. What special responsibilities do computer professionals have with respect to under-
standing and protecting the privacy rights of their fellow citizens?
In-Class Exercises
45. What does your “ladder of privacy” look like? How does it compare to those of your
classmates?
46. Give an example of a piece of information that a person should not have to reveal to
anyone else. Give an example of a piece of information that society should be able to
demand that a person reveal.
47. Divide the class into two groups. The first group should come up with evidence sup-
porting the proposition “We live in a global village.” The second group should come up
with evidence supporting the proposition “We live in a world of strangers.”
48. When you purchase a product or service using a credit card, the merchant has infor-
mation linking you to the transaction. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con)
to debate the proposition that merchants should be required to follow an opt-in policy.
260 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
Such a policy would require the consumer to explicitly give permission before a mer-
chant could share information about that consumer with another organization.
49. While the cost of automobile insurance varies from person to person, based on the
driving record of each individual, health insurance premiums are typically uniform
across groups of people, such as all the employees of a company. However, a majority
of health care costs are incurred by a minority of the population.
Today it is possible to take a blood sample from a person and to extract a genetic
profile that reveals the person’s disposition to certain diseases. Debate the proposition
that health insurance rates should be tailored to reflect each individual’s propensity to
illness.
50. Joe Herzenberg was a historian and politician, as well as the first openly gay elected of-
ficial in North Carolina. After he died in 2007, his papers, including correspondence,
photographs, diaries, and other materials, were donated to the Southern Historical Col-
lection (SHC). Herzenberg kept a record of his personal and professional accomplish-
ments and struggles in a series of diaries spanning more than 50 years. In the diaries,
“Herzenberg documents his sexual encounters and alludes to his friends’ sexual rela-
tionships and illegal activities” [75].
According to Laura Clark Brown, “Most SHC collections are unrestricted for both
research and duplication in the SHC’s search room. In that relatively controlled envi-
ronment, [the SHC transfers] the responsibilities for the use of sensitive materials to the
researcher” [75]. SHC librarians must decide whether they should digitize the contents
of Joe Herzenberg’s diaries and make them available on the Web.
Debate the following proposition: The SHC librarians should not digitize the con-
tents of Joe Herzenberg’s diaries until everyone mentioned in the diaries has either given
permission or died.
Further Reading and Viewing
Elizabeth Alex and Mark Clegg. “Smartphone Pictures Pose Privacy Risks.” KSHB/NBC Ac-
tion News, November 9, 2010. 3:56. www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vARzvWxwY.
Maria Bartiromo. “Inside the Mind of Google.” CNBC, December 3, 2009. 43:09. http://video
.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000021036.
Robby Bryant and Bryan Horling. “Personalized Search.” Google, December 4, 2009. 1:32.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vARzvWxwY.
Charles Duhigg. “How Companies Learn Your Secrets.” New York Times Magazine, February
16, 2012.
Poppy Harlow. “My Private Life Revealed on the Web.” CNNMoney Reports, May 26, 2011.
2:39. money.cnn.com/video/.
Evan Ratliff. “Shedding Your Identity in the Digital Age.” Wired, December 2009.
Jeffrey Rosen. “The Web Means the End of Forgetting.” New York Times, July 21, 2010. www
.nytimes.com.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vARzvWxwY
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000021036
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000021036
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vARzvWxwY
www.nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com
References 261
References
[1] Polly Sprenger. “Sun on Privacy: ‘Get Over It.’ ” Wired, January 26, 1999. www.wired
.com.
[2] Edmund F. Byrne. “Privacy.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, volume 3, pp. 649–659.
Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, 1998.
[3] Edward J. Bloustein. “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean
Prossera.” In Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by Ferdinand
David Schoeman, pp. 156–202, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1984.
[4] Ferdinand Schoeman. “Privacy: Philosophical Dimensions of the Literature.” In Philo-
sophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman,
pp. 1–33, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[5] Edmund Ronald Leach. A Runaway World? British Broadcasting Corporation, Lon-
don, England, 1967.
[6] Marie Hartwell-Walker. “Why Dysfunctional Families Stay That Way.” Amherst Bul-
letin, January 28, 1994.
[7] Morton H. Levine. “Privacy in the Tradition of the Western World.” In Privacy: A
Vanishing Value?, edited by William C. Bier, S.J., pp. 3–21, Fordham University Press,
New York, NY, 1980.
[8] Jeffrey H. Reiman. “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood.” Philosophy & Public Af-
fairs 6(1):26–44, 1976. Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthol-
ogy, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1984.
[9] Stanley I. Benn. “Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons.” In Philosophical Dimen-
sions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman, pp. 223–244,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[10] Charles J. Sykes. The End of Privacy. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, 1999.
[11] Gini Graham Scott. Mind Your Own Business: The Battle for Personal Privacy. Insight
Books/Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1995.
[12] Constance T. Fischer. “Privacy and Human Development.” In Privacy: A Vanishing
Value?, edited by William C. Bier, S.J., pp. 37–45, Fordham University Press, New York,
NY, 1980.
[13] Robert C. Neville. “Various Meanings of Privacy: A Philosophical Analysis.” In Pri-
vacy: A Vanishing Value?, edited by William C. Bier, S.J., pp. 22–33, Fordham Univer-
sity Press, New York, NY, 1980.
[14] Joseph G. Keegan, S.J. “Privacy and Spiritual Growth.” In Privacy: A Vanishing Value?,
edited by William C. Bier, S.J., pp. 67–87, Fordham University Press, New York, NY,
1980.
[15] Charles Fried. “Privacy: A Moral Analysis.” Yale Law Review 77:475–493, 1968. Re-
printed in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by Ferdinand
David Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[16] James Rachels. “Why Privacy Is Important.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(4):323–
333, 1975. Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by
Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
www.wired.com
www.wired.com
262 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
[17] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review
4(5), December 15, 1890.
[18] William L. Prosser. “Privacy: A Legal Analysis.” California Law Review 48:338–423,
1960. Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by
Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[19] Judith Jarvis Thomson. “The Right to Privacy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(4):295–
314, 1975. Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by
Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[20] Alexander Rosenberg. “Privacy as a Matter of Taste and Right.” In The Right to Privacy,
edited by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, pp. 68–90. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000.
[21] Steven L. Nock. The Costs of Privacy: Surveillance and Reputation in America. Aldine
de Gruyter, New York, NY, 1993.
[22] Michael L. Sankey and Peter J. Weber, editors. Public Records Online: The National
Guide to Private & Government Online Sources of Public Records. 4th ed. Facts on
Demand Press, Tempe, AZ, 2003.
[23] Ben Popken. “New Service Adds Your Drunken Facebook Photos to Employer Back-
ground Checks, for up to Seven Years.” Consumerist , June 21, 2011. www.consumerist
.com.
[24] Social Intelligence (Web site). Accessed October 15, 2013. www.socialintel.com.
[25] Justin Mitchell. “Making Photo Tagging Easier.” The Facebook Blog , December 15,
2010. blog.facebook.com.
[26] “EPIC Complaint in re: Facebook and the Facial Identification of Users.” Federal Trade
Commission, June 10, 2011.
[27] Rachel King. “Facebook Photo Tag Suggestions: What’s So Bad about Them Anyway?”
Between the Lines, ZDNet , June 9, 2011. www.zdnet.com.
[28] Jay Warrior, Eric McHenry, and Kenneth McGee. “They Know Where You Are.” IEEE
Spectrum, pp. 20–25, July 2003.
[29] Elizabeth Montalbano. “Microsoft Helps Put Ads on Computerized Shopping Carts.”
IDG News, January 16, 2008. www.pcworld.com.
[30] John Vanderlippe. “Supermarket Cards: An Overview of the Pricing Issues.” Con-
sumers against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, 2003. www.nocards
.org/overview.
[31] Elizabeth Weise. “Identity Swapping Makes Privacy Relative.” USA Today, June 6,
2000.
[32] Stephanie Clifford. “Shopper Alert: Price May Drop for You Alone.” New York Times,
August 10, 2012.
[33] Amy Tsao. “So, We’ll Take It In. . . .” Retail Traffic, May 1, 2003.
[34] Charles J. Murray. “Privacy Concerns Mount over Retail Use of RFID Technology.”
Electronic Engineering Times (1298), December 1, 2003.
[35] Meg McGinty. “RFID: Is This Game of Tag Fair Play?” Communications of the ACM
47(1):15–18, January 2004.
[36] “Owners of Dogs Lacking Implants Face Fines.” China Post , September 1, 2000.
[37] Amal Graafstra. “How Radio-Frequency Identification and I Got Personal.” IEEE Spec-
trum, March 2007.
www.consumerist.com
www.consumerist.com
www.zdnet.com
www.pcworld.com
www.nocards.org/overview
www.nocards.org/overview
www.socialintel.com
References 263
[38] Duncan Graham-Rowe. “Clubbers Choose Chip Implants to Jump Queues.” NewSci-
entist , May 21, 2004. www.newscientist.com.
[39] “Parents Look to Microchip Children.” CNN.com/World, September 3, 2002. archives
.cnn.com.
[40] Lylah M. Alphonse. “In the Parenthood.” Boston.com Moms, June 9, 2010. www
.boston.com.
[41] Tom Krisher. “OnStar Halts Stolen SUV in Visalia Police Chase.” BakersfieldNow.com,
Bakersfield, California, October 19, 2009. www.bakersfieldnow.com.
[42] “OnStar Takes on Conspiracy Theorists.” Edmunds InsideLine, November 13, 2009.
www.insideline.com.
[43] Ian Austen. “Your Brake Pads May Have Something to Say (by E-mail).” NYtimes.com,
March 27, 2003.
[44] Editorial. “Your E-Health Records.” New York Times, January 31, 2009.
[45] American Civil Liberties Union. “Seizure of Rush Limbaugh’s Medical Records Vio-
lates Florida’s Constitutional Right of Privacy, ACLU Tells Court.” Press release, Febru-
ary 17, 2004. www.aclu.org.
[46] “TiVo: Viewers Skip Fewer ‘Relevant Ads.’” Adweek, July 30, 2008. www.adweek.com.
[47] Ashkan Soltani, Shannon Canty, Quentin Mayo, Lauren Thomas, and Chris Jay Hoof-
nagle. “Flash Cookies and Privacy.” University of California, Berkeley, School of Law,
Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, August 10, 2009.
[48] L. A. Lorek. “Data Mining Extracts Online Gold; Stores Collect Information about
Web Customers to Target Future Sales Pitches.” San Antonio Express-News, December
15, 2002.
[49] “Personalized Search: Basics.” Google Web site. Accessed September 2, 2011. www
.google.com/support.
[50] “United We Find.” Economist , March 10, 2005.
[51] Carolyn Hirschman. “Congress Sticks Its Nose into Online Privacy.” Telephony 241(7),
August 13, 2001.
[52] Katie Leslie and Marcus K. Gamer. “Poor Credit Prevents Some from Scoring a Job.”
Chicago Tribune, November 12, 2010. articles.chicagotribune.com.
[53] Charles Duhigg. “How Companies Learn Your Secrets.” New York Times Magazine,
February 16, 2012.
[54] Jeanne Cummings. “Rove’s Patented Strategies Will Endure.” Politico, August 13,
2007. www.politico.com.
[55] “How Deep Are Your Pockets?” Economist , June 30, 2012.
[56] “Untangling the Social Web.” Economist Technology Quarterly, pp. 16–17, September
4, 2010.
[57] Ann Cavoukian and Don Tapscott. Who Knows: Safeguarding Your Privacy in a Net-
worked World. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1996.
[58] Facebook. “Leading Websites Offer Facebook Beacon for Social Distribution.” Press
release, November 6, 2007. www.facebook.com.
[59] Ellen Nakashima. “Feeling Betrayed, Facebook Users Force Site to Honor Their Pri-
vacy.” Washington Post , November 30, 2007.
[60] Farhad Manjoo. “Facebook Finally Lets Users Turn Off Privacy-Invading Ads.” Sa-
lon.com, December 6, 2007. www.salon.com.
www.newscientist.com
www.boston.com
www.boston.com
www.bakers.eldnow.com
www.insideline.com
www.aclu.org
www.google.com/support
www.google.com/support
www.politico.com
www.facebook.com
www.salon.com
www.adweek.com
264 Chapter 5 Information Privacy
[61] Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. “Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse
Datasets.” 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 18–21, 2008.
[62] Neil Hunt. “NetFlix Prize Update.” The Official Netflix Blog , March 12, 2010. blog
.netflix.com.
[63] “Malls Stop Tracking Shoppers’ Cell Phones.” CNNMoney, November 28, 2011.
money.cnn.com.
[64] Arun Thampi. “Path Uploads Your Entire iPhone Address Book to Its Servers.”
mclov.in (blog), February 8, 2012. mclov.in.
[65] Nick Bilton. “Disruptions: So Many Apologies, So Much Data Mining.” New York
Times, February 12, 2012.
[66] Nicole Perlroth and Nick Bilton. “Mobile Apps Take Data without Permission.” New
York Times, February 15, 2012.
[67] Jenna Wortham and Nick Bilton. “What Instagram’s New Terms of Service Mean for
You.” New York Times, December 17, 2012.
[68] Nicole Perlroth and Jenna Wortham. “Instagram’s Loss Is a Gain for Its Rivals.” New
York Times, December 20, 2012.
[69] Kevin Systrom. “Updated Terms of Service Based on Your Feedback.” Instagram, De-
cember 2012. blog.instagram.com.
[70] Steve Lohr. “How Privacy Vanishes Online.” New York Times, March 16, 2010.
[71] Robert J. Sawyer. “Privacy: Who Needs It?: We’re Better Off without It, Argues
Canada’s Leading Sci-Fi Writer.” Maclean’s (Toronto Edition), p. 44, October 7, 2002.
[72] Stewart Deck. “Legal Thumbs-Up for Raytheon Employee Suit; Privacy Groups
Chilled by ISP Subpoenas.” Computerworld, April 12, 1999.
[73] Ken Fisher. “Apple Hides Account Info in DRM-Free Music, Too.” Ars Technica, May
30, 2007. http://arstechnica.com.
[74] Jessica Guynn. “Google Glass Sees All—and That Raises Privacy Concerns.” Los Ange-
les Times, August 9, 2013.
[75] Laura Clark Brown. “Third-Party-Privacy-Case-Studies.” Southern Historical Col-
lection 2009 Symposia Wiki, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, February, 2009. http://
shc2009symposia.pbworks.com.
http://arstechnica.com
http://shc2009symposia.pbworks.com
http://shc2009symposia.pbworks.com
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
Michael Zimmer
Michael Zimmer, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of
Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and
codirector of the Center for Information Policy Research. With a
background in new media and Internet studies, the philosophy of
technology, and information policy and ethics, Zimmer’s research
focuses on the ethical dimensions of new media and information
technologies, with particular interest in privacy, social media, Internet
research ethics, and ethical design.
Zimmer serves on numerous advisory boards, including the Wash-
ington, DC–based Future of Privacy Forum policy think tank and the
NSF-sponsored Values-in-Design Council. He is on the editorial advisory boards of the scholarly
journals Internet Research and the International Review of Information Ethics, and is coeditor of The Infor-
mation Society book series for MIT Press. He has participated in various public interest activities, and
provided expert advice and consultation for projects at the American Library Association, the New
York Public Library, Google, and Microsoft.
You’ve become known for your critique of the “Tastes, Ties, and Time” (T3) research project.
Please give us an overview of the T3 project.
The explosive popularity of online social networking platforms such as MySpace, Twitter, and Face-
book has attracted attention from a variety of researchers and disciplines. However, most studies rely
on external surveys of social networking participants, ethnographies of smaller subsets of subjects, or
the analysis of limited profile information extracted from what subjects chose to make visible. As a
result, the available data can often be tainted due to self-reporting biases and errors, have minimal
representativeness of the entire population, or fail to reflect the true depth and complexity of the in-
formation and connections that flow across social networking sites.
Recognizing the data limitations faced by typical sociological studies of online social network dynam-
ics, a group of researchers from Harvard University and the University of California, Los Angeles, set
out to construct a more robust dataset that would fully leverage the rich data available on social net-
working Web sites. Given its popularity, the researchers chose the social network site Facebook as their
data source and located a university that allowed them to download the Facebook profiles of every
member of the freshman class. This was repeated annually until the study population graduated, pro-
viding four years of data about this collegiate social network. Each student’s official housing records
were also obtained from the university, allowing the researchers to compare Internet-based connec-
tions and real-world proximity.
The resulting dataset is unique: it was collected without relying on participant self-reporting, repre-
sents nearly an entire real-world social network of college students, includes valuable demographic,
cultural, and relational information about the subjects, and provides four years of data for robust lon-
gitudinal study.
The sociologists didn’t reveal the name of the college where they had collected the data.
How did you determine that the subjects were Harvard College students?
When the researchers released the dataset, it was noted, “all the data is cleaned so you cannot connect
anyone to an identity.” This assertion caught my attention, since this dataset potentially includes
personal and sensitive information about the students, and attempts to completely anonymize large
datasets have fallen short in the past (such as the AOL search data released in 2006 and the NetFlix
dataset in 2008). So I decided to investigate.
I downloaded the publicly available codebook of the dataset (gaining access to the data itself required
approval by the researchers) and also started examining various articles and public comments made
about the research project. An examination of the codebook revealed the source was a private, coed-
ucational institution, whose class of 2009 initially had 1,640 students in it. Elsewhere, the source was
described as a “New England” school. A search through an online college database revealed only seven
private, coed colleges in New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont) with total undergraduate populations between 5,000 and 7,500 students (a
likely range if there were 1,640 in the 2006 freshman class): Tufts University, Suffolk University, Yale
University, University of Hartford, Quinnipiac University, Brown University, and Harvard College.
The codebook also listed the majors represented in the dataset, which included unique descriptors,
such as Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Studies of Women, Gender and Sexuality, and
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. A quick search revealed that only Harvard provides these degree
programs. The identification of Harvard College was further confirmed after analysis of a June 2008
video presentation by one of the researchers, where he noted that “midway through the freshman year,
students have to pick between one and seven best friends” that they will essentially live with for the
rest of their undergraduate career. This describes the unique method for determining undergraduate
housing at Harvard: all freshmen who complete the fall term enter into a lottery, where they can
designate a “blocking group” of between two and eight students with whom they would like to be
housed in close proximity. I was able to confirm this, again, through a simple Web search.
The announcement of this likely identification of the source of the T3 dataset did not prompt a public
reply by the research team, but within a week of the discovery the dataset was pulled from the publicly
available repository.
Why does it matter that you were able to determine the subjects of the T3 study were
Harvard students?
There are two primary concerns. First, there is the issue of possibly being able to identify particular
subjects in the dataset. The researchers took care to remove obvious identifiable data (names, email
addresses, etc.), but now that the source of the dataset had been determined, it might be easier to
identify unique individuals. For example, the codebook reveals that there is only one person in the
dataset from each of the states of Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Wyoming. Some
time in front of a search engine might reveal the identity of that one student that the state of Delaware
sent to Harvard in 2006. Once we’ve identified that student, we can now connect her with her personal
data elements in the dataset. In short, the privacy of the subjects in the database is at risk.
My other concern is actually greater: that the researchers felt their methodology was sufficient. There
were a number of good-faith steps taken by the research team, but each fell short. The research team has
defended itself by noting it only gathered Facebook information that was already publicly accessible.
However, the team utilized Harvard graduate students to access and retrieve the profile data. At the
time of the study, it was possible for Facebook users to restrict access to their profiles to people only
within their home university. Thus it is entirely possible that the research team had privileged access
to a profile by virtue of being within the Harvard network, while the general public would have been
locked out by the user’s privacy settings. Researchers must avoid such cavalier positions: just because
something happens to be accessible on a social media site does not mean that it is free for the taking,
no questions asked.
Is it reasonable for anyone to expect that the information they post online will be kept as
private as information shared verbally among a few confidants?
This is an important issue. It is easy for a researcher to simply say “if it is publicly available, then I can
take it”; but that simple statement doesn’t necessarily fit within the broader tenets of research ethics.
Our concern should be with the subject: what was the intention of that post? Whom did they think
would see it? Did they understand it is visible to everyone? Did the default settings of the platform
change since it was originally posted (consider how Facebook has suddenly made people’s “likes”
publicly viewable, when previously they could be hidden)?
I don’t mean to suggest that it is never acceptable to mine these Web sites for research data, but simply
we must take great care to consider the context and expectations. It is not simply a matter of “already
public.”
What is your fundamental objection to the research methodology used in the T3 study?
Fundamentally, my concern is centered on the fact that even well-intended researchers—and their
Institutional Research Board (IRB)—failed to fully understand the implications of their methodology.
Like many, they seemed to be holding onto the traditional dichotomy of “public versus private”
information, assuming that because someone posted something on a (possibly) public social media
profile page, it is free for the taking without consent or concern over the poster’s original intentions
or expectations. I’m concerned that as more powerful tools to automate this kind of scraping of social
media platforms are developed, and more research—both from highly experienced scholars and novice
undergrads—takes place, this kind of potential breach of privacy and anonymity will become more
common.
If the researchers had been more careful and had succeeded in their goal of making the
dataset truly anonymous, would you still have criticized their study?
Better protecting the source of the data would have helped, and it appears that the researchers have
rewritten the original codebook to remove the unique names of the majors and also make the geo-
graphic origin of the subjects more generic. Despite these improvements, the methodological concerns
persist, and I likely would have still expressed concern over the need for informed consent before scrap-
ing the students’ Facebook data.
Are you saying that social scientists engaged in research projects should be required to
get written permission from subjects before gathering information those subjects have
posted on social networks?
This is a complicated issue, and it certainly isn’t possible to get written consent from all subjects in
every case. Each research project should be considered separately and reviewed by an IRB and related
experts. I do feel that the intents of the subjects should be strongly weighed in the decision-making
process. I suspect few people with public Twitter feeds ever expected their 140-character utterances—
typically lost in a sea of thousands of tweets every moment—would be archived by the Library of
Congress for research purposes. These are the kinds of scenarios that should force us as a research
community to think about what is the most ethical approach to social media-based research projects.
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
C H A P T E R
6 Privacy and the
Government
A system that fails to respect its citizens’ right to privacy fails to respect the citizens
themselves.
—–Richard Nixon, February 23, 1974
6.1 Introduction
In 2005 a senior at UMass Dartmouth was collecting materials for a research paper on
communism he was writing for one of his history classes. The campus library did not
have a copy of Mao Tse-tung’s “Little Red Book,” so he filled out an interlibrary loan
request, giving his name, address, phone number, and Social Security number. A couple
of months later, two agents of the Department of Homeland Security visited him. They
told him the book is on a “watch list.” The student’s interlibrary loan request, combined
with the fact that he had spent significant time abroad, apparently triggered the visit. His
professor said, “I shudder to think of all the students I’ve had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
sites, what the government must think of that” [1].
On the morning of July 18, 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer opened the door to her
apartment and was shot to death by obsessed fan Robert Bardo. Bardo got Schaeffer’s
home address from a private investigator who purchased her driver’s license information
from the California Department of Motor Vehicles [2]. In response to this murder,
the US Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in 1994. The law prohibits
states from revealing certain personal information provided by drivers in order to obtain
licenses. It also requires states to provide this information to the federal government.
270 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
After seven-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey was abducted, raped, and mur-
dered by a neighbor who had a criminal record as a pedophile, Congress passed a law
requiring that local police release information about registered sex offenders living in
the community. Today there are more than half a million registered sex offenders in the
United States. Some experts say police are overwhelmed by the number of offenders they
need to monitor; the experts question the value of laws that require persons convicted of
relatively minor offenses to be registered along with those who have committed terrible
crimes [3].
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concerns about national secu-
rity have risen significantly, at the expense of privacy rights. A 2006 poll revealed that
a majority of Americans support “expanded camera surveillance on streets and in pub-
lic places” (70 percent), “law enforcement monitoring of Internet discussions in chat
rooms and other forums” (62 percent), “closer monitoring of banking and credit card
transactions, to trace funding sources” (61 percent), and even “expanded government
monitoring of cell phones and email, to intercept communications” (52 percent). Re-
markably, one-third of those polled agreed that “this use of investigative powers by the
president should be done under his executive authority without needing congressional
authorization” [4]. In post-9/11 America, President Nixon’s abuses of presidential power
seem like ancient history.
In this chapter we consider the impact that federal, state, and local governments in
the United States have had on the information privacy of those living in America. The
word “privacy” does not even appear in the Constitution of the United States, and it
has been difficult for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government to
find the right compromise between demands for privacy and competing concerns. We
survey legislation designed to protect the information privacy of individuals as well as
legislation allowing law enforcement agencies to collect information about individuals
in an effort to prevent criminal or terrorist activities. We look at famous examples from
American history in which governmental agencies engaged in illegal activities under
the banner of protecting public safety and/or national security, and we see how the
US Supreme Court gradually shifted its view of information privacy rights over time.
To organize our presentation, we will use the taxonomy of privacy proposed by
Daniel Solove [5].1 Solove groups privacy-related activities into four categories:
1. Information collection refers to activities that gather personal information. We discuss
issues related to information collection by the government in Sections 6.2 through 6.6.
2. Information processing refers to activities that store, manipulate, and use personal in-
formation that has been collected. Sections 6.7 through 6.9 focus on the information-
processing category.
3. Information dissemination refers to activities that spread personal information. Section
6.10 provides examples of laws designed to restrict information dissemination by private
1. Reproduced by permission of the publisher from Understanding Privacy by Daniel J. Solove, p. 103,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 2008 by the President and Fellows of Harvard
College.
6.2 US Legislation Restricting Information Collection 271
organizations, as well as legal ways in which information held by the government can be
disseminated.
4. Invasion refers to activities that intrude upon a person’s daily life, interrupt a person’s
solitude, or interfere with someone’s decision making. In Section 6.11 we survey govern-
ment actions to limit intrusion by other organizations, as well as government programs
that can be seen as intrusive.
We consider each of these categories in turn, examining how federal, state, and
local governments in the United States have addressed the often-competing interests of
protecting personal privacy and promoting the common good.
6.2 US Legislation Restricting Information
Collection
This section gives three examples of federal legislation that limits the amount of infor-
mation private entities can collect from individuals.
6.2.1 Employee Polygraph Protection Act
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) prohibits most private employ-
ers from using lie detector tests under most situations. An employer may not require or
even request a job applicant or employee to take a lie detector test, and an employee who
refuses to take a lie detector test cannot suffer any retaliation.
The law has several important exceptions. Pharmaceutical companies and security
firms may administer polygraph tests to job applicants in certain job categories. Employ-
ers who have suffered an economic loss, such as theft, may administer polygraph tests to
employees whom they reasonably suspect were involved. Most significantly, EPPA does
not apply to federal, state, and local governments.
6.2.2 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which went into effect in 2000,
is designed to reduce the amount of information gathered from children using the
Internet. According to COPPA, online services must obtain parental consent before
collecting any information from children 12 years old and younger.
6.2.3 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 is designed to prevent discrim-
ination in the areas of medical benefits and employment based on genetic information.
It prohibits health insurance companies and health plan administrators from request-
ing genetic information from individuals or their family members, and it forbids them
from using genetic information when making decisions about coverage, rates, or preex-
isting conditions. It also prohibits most employers from taking genetic information into
account when making hiring, firing, promotion, or any other decisions related to the
terms of employment. The law does not extend these nondiscrimination protections to
272 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
life insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance, and it does not apply to
employers with fewer than 15 employees [6].
6.3 Information Collection by the Government
In the previous section we considered ways in which the federal government has re-
stricted the amount of information that private organizations can collect about individ-
uals. In this section we look at ways in which the federal government itself has collected
vast amounts of sensitive information about its citizens.
6.3.1 Census Records
In order to ensure each state has fair representation in the House of Representatives, the
United States Constitution requires the government to perform a census every 10 years.
The first census of 1790 had six questions. It asked for the name of the head of the
household and the number of persons in each of the following categories: free white
males at least 16 years old; free white males under 16 years old; free white females; all
other free persons (by sex and color); and slaves.
As time passed, the number of questions asked during the census increased. The
1820 census determined the number of people engaged in agriculture, commerce, and
manufacturing. The 1840 census had questions regarding school attendance, illiteracy,
and occupations. In 1850 census takers began asking questions about taxes, schools,
crime, wages, and property values.
The 1940 census is notable because for the first time statistical sampling was put to
extensive use. A random sample of the population, about 5 percent of those surveyed,
received a longer form with more questions. The use of sampling enabled the Census
Bureau to produce detailed demographic profiles without substantially increasing the
amount of data it needed to process.
Today the Census Bureau only uses a single short form when conducting the de-
cennial census. It gathers more detailed information on a continuous basis through the
American Community Survey. This program mails a questionnaire with more than 50
questions to 3 million addresses per year. Questions include the following:
. What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?
. Does this person speak a language other than English at home?
. How many times has this person been married?
. How did this person usually get to work last week?
. Which fuel is used most for heating this house, apartment, or mobile home?
According to federal law, the Census Bureau is supposed to keep confidential the
information it collects. However, in times of national emergency, the Census Bureau has
revealed its information to other agencies. During World War I, the Census Bureau pro-
vided the names and addresses of young men to the military, which was searching for
draft resisters. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Census Bureau provided
6.3 Information Collection by the Government 273
Figure 6.1 After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Army used information illegally
obtained from the Census Bureau to round up Japanese Americans. (National Archives, file
#210-G-3B-414)
the Justice Department with information from the 1940 census about the general lo-
cation of Japanese Americans. The Army used this information to round up Japanese
Americans and send them to internment camps (Figure 6.1).
6.3.2 Internal Revenue Service Records
The United States enacted a national income tax in 1862 to help pay for expenses related
to the Civil War. In 1872 the income tax was repealed. Congress resurrected the national
income tax in 1894, but a year later the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the states in 1913, gives the United
States government the power to collect an income tax. A national income tax has been in
place ever since. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) now collects more than $2 trillion
a year in taxes.
Your income tax form may reveal a tremendous amount of personal information
about your income, your assets, the organizations to which you give charitable contri-
butions, your medical expenses, and much more.
274 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
6.3.3 FBI National Crime Information Center 2000
The FBI National Crime Information Center 2000 (NCIC) is a collection of databases
supporting the activities of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the
United States, the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Canada [7]. Its pre-
decessor, the National Crime Information Center, was established by the FBI in January
1967 under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover.
When it was first activated, the NCIC consisted of about 95,000 records in five
databases: stolen automobiles, stolen license plates, stolen or missing guns, other stolen
items, and missing persons. Today NCIC databases contain more than 39 million
records. The databases have been expanded to include such categories as wanted per-
sons, criminal histories, people incarcerated in federal prisons, convicted sex offenders,
unidentified persons, people believed to be a threat to the president, foreign fugitives,
violent gang members, and suspected terrorists. More than 80,000 law enforcement
agencies have access to these data files. The NCIC processes about five million requests
for information each day, with an average response time of less than one second.
The FBI points to the following successes of the NCIC:
. Investigating the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the NCIC provided the
FBI with the information it needed to link a fingerprint on the murder weapon to
James Earl Ray.
. In 1992 the NCIC led to the apprehension of 81,750 “wanted” persons, 113,293
arrests, the location of 39,268 missing juveniles and 8,549 missing adults, and the
retrieval of 110,681 stolen cars.
. About an hour after the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma state trooper Charles Hanger pulled over a
Mercury Marquis with no license plates. Seeing a gun in the back seat of the car,
Hanger arrested the driver—Timothy McVeigh—on the charge of transporting a
loaded firearm in a motor vehicle. He took McVeigh to the county jail, and the ar-
rest was duly entered into the NCIC database. Two days later, when federal agents
ran McVeigh’s name through the NCIC, they saw Hanger’s arrest record. FBI agents
reached the jail just before McVeigh was released (Figure 6.2). McVeigh was subse-
quently convicted of the bombing.
Critics of the National Crime Information Center point out ways in which the
existence of the NCIC has led to privacy violations of innocent people:
. Erroneous records can lead law enforcement agencies to arrest innocent persons.
. Innocent people have been arrested because their name is the same as someone
listed in the arrest warrants database.
. The FBI has used the NCIC to keep records about people not suspected of any crime,
such as opponents of the Vietnam War.
. Corrupt employees of law enforcement organizations with access to the NCIC have
sold information to private investigators and altered or deleted records.
. People with access to the NCIC have illegally used it to search for criminal records
on acquaintances or to screen potential employees, such as babysitters.
6.3 Information Collection by the Government 275
Figure 6.2 The National Crime Information Center facilitated the arrest of Timothy
McVeigh for the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (© Bob E.
Daemmrich/Sygma/Corbis)
6.3.4 OneDOJ Database
The OneDOJ database, managed by the US Department of Justice, provides state and
local police officers access to information supplied by five federal law enforcement agen-
cies: the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, the US Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Prisons. The database, called
OneDOJ, stores incident reports, interrogation summaries, and other information not
presently available through the National Crime Information Center. At the end of 2006,
the OneDOJ database already contained more than one million records.
Critics of the OneDOJ database point out that it gives local police officers access to
information about people who have not been arrested or charged with any crime. Barry
Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “Raw police files or FBI reports
can never be verified and can never be corrected. . . . The idea that the whole system is
going to be full of inaccurate information is just chilling” [8].
276 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
Figure 6.3 After the Boston Marathon bombing, images from surveillance cameras played
an important role in the apprehension of the suspects.
6.3.5 Closed-Circuit Television Cameras
The use of closed-circuit television cameras for video surveillance in the United States
began in western New York in 1968. The small town of Olean installed a surveillance
camera along its main business street in an effort to reduce crime. Within a year, more
than 160 police chiefs from around the country visited Olean to learn more about their
system [9]. Today there are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras operating in
the United States [10].
The number of surveillance cameras keeps increasing (Figure 6.3). New York City is
spending $201 million to install 3,000 closed-circuit security cameras in lower Manhat-
tan. These surveillance cameras are connected to computer systems with sophisticated
image-scanning software that can sound alarms if someone leaves an unattended pack-
age. The cameras are part of a larger network of sensors that also includes license plate
readers and radiation detectors [11].
The New York Civil Liberties Union has expressed opposition to the large increase
in security cameras, saying they represent a violation of privacy and will not prevent
terrorist attacks. The associate legal director of the NYCLU, Christopher Dunn, said
“Our main concern is that it’s unlike most police activity, which is focused on people
who are suspected of unlawful activity. In fact, 99.9 percent of people who are captured
in the system are just going to be people walking around, going about their business”
[11].
6.3 Information Collection by the Government 277
Figure 6.4 Some police departments have acquired small unmanned drones to serve as
surveillance platforms.
Some critics point to Great Britain as proof that surveillance cameras cannot guar-
antee public safety. There are 4.2 million surveillance cameras in Britain, one for every
14 people. It has been estimated that the average Briton is caught on camera an average
of 300 times per day [12]. Still, the presence of all these cameras did not prevent the sui-
cide bombings in the London subway system in 2005 [13]. Some experts have reached
the conclusion that closed-circuit television cameras are “largely ineffective” for crime
prevention [14].
6.3.6 Police Drones
Nine police departments in six different states have begun operating unmanned drones
(Figure 6.4). Police drones are nothing like the large Predator drones used in Afghan-
istan; Federal Administration Aviation rules require that drones used by the police weigh
no more than 25 pounds, fly no higher than 400 feet, and be flown during daylight
within view of the operator [15]. Possible uses of the small drones include searching for
missing persons, surveying storm damage to isolated neighborhoods, controlling illegal
immigration, pursuing fugitive criminals, and performing surveillance at large public
gatherings [16].
Some uses of police drones are supported by the public, but others are not. In a
recent poll conducted by Monmouth University, 66 percent of Americans expressed
privacy concerns related to the use of unmanned drones with high-tech cameras by
US law enforcement agencies and 67 percent opposed the use of drones to issue speeding
tickets, but 80 percent supported the use of drones in search-and-rescue missions [17].
Numerous cities and states are currently debating what controls, if any, should be
placed on the police use of drones. Should police be required to get a search warrant
278 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
before deploying a drone, or should they be able to use a drone to collect the evidence
they need to get a search warrant? Seattle police purchased two drones, but after a
strong public protest, Mayor Mike McGinn ordered the drones to be sent back to the
manufacturer [16]. Florida, Virginia, and Idaho have passed laws prohibiting the use of
police drones for crowd surveillance at public events [18].
6.4 Covert Government Surveillance
We now turn to ways in which the United States government has collected information
in order to detect and apprehend suspected criminals or to improve national security.
Because the individuals being observed are suspected of wrongdoing, they are not alerted
or asked for permission before the surveillance begins.
Does covert surveillance violate any of the rights of a citizen? The most relevant
statement in the US Constitution is the Fourth Amendment:
�
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
�
Before the American Revolution, English agents in pursuit of smugglers made use
of writs of assistance, which gave them authority to enter any house or building and seize
any prohibited goods they could find. This activity drew the ire of the colonists. It is not
surprising, then, that a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures appears
in the Bill of Rights.
The position of the US Supreme Court with respect to covert electronic surveillance
has changed over time. Let’s see how the Supreme Court’s position evolved.
6.4.1 Wiretaps and Bugs
Wiretapping refers to the interception of a telephone conversation. (The term is some-
what anachronistic, because many telephone conversations are no longer transmitted
over wires.) Wiretapping has been taking place ever since the 1890s, when telephones be-
came commonly used. The state of New York made wiretapping a felony in 1892, but the
police in New York City ignored the law and continued the practice of wiretapping. Un-
til 1920, the New York City police listened to conversations between lawyers and clients,
doctors and patients, and priests and penitents. On several occasions the police even
tapped the trunk lines into hotels and listened to the telephone conversations of all the
hotel guests [19].
6.4 Covert Government Surveillance 279
OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES
Wiretapping was a popular tool for catching bootleggers during Prohibition (1919–
1933). The most famous case involved Roy Olmstead, who ran a $2-million-a-year
bootlegging business in Seattle, Washington. Without a warrant, federal agents tapped
Olmstead’s phone and collected enough evidence to convict him. Although wiretapping
was illegal under Washington law, the state court allowed evidence obtained through the
wiretapping to be admitted. Olmstead appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
His lawyer argued that the police had violated Olmstead’s right to privacy by listening in
on his telephone conversations. He also argued that the evidence should be thrown out
because it was obtained without a search warrant [19, 20].
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. United States that the
Fourth Amendment protected tangible assets alone. The federal agents did not “search”
a physical place; they did not “seize” a physical item. Hence the Fourth Amendment’s
provision against warrantless search and seizure did not apply. Justice Louis Brandeis
(mentioned in Section 5.2.3) was one of the four judges siding with Olmstead. In his
dissenting opinion, Brandeis argued that the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights
ought to extend to electronic communications as well. He wrote:
Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the
line is invaded, and all conversations between them upon any subject, and although
proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of
one man’s telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person
whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance
and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when
compared with wiretapping. [21]
CONGRESS MAKES WIRETAPPING ILLEGAL
The public and the press were critical of the Supreme Court decision. Since the Court
had ruled that wiretapping was constitutional, those interested in prohibiting wiretap-
ping focused their efforts on the legislative branch. In 1934 the US Congress passed the
Federal Communications Act, which (among other things) made it illegal to intercept
and reveal wire communications. Three years later the Supreme Court used the Fed-
eral Communications Act to reverse its position on warrantless wiretaps. In Nardone v.
United States, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by federal agents from warrantless
wiretaps was inadmissible in court. In another decision, Weiss v. United States, it ruled
that the prohibition on wiretapping applied to intrastate as well as interstate telephone
calls. Subsequently the attorney general announced that the FBI would cease wiretap-
ping [19, 20].
FBI CONTINUES SECRET WIRETAPPING
After World War II broke out in Europe, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover pressed to have
the ban on wiretapping withdrawn (Figure 6.5). The position of the Department of
Justice was that the Federal Communications Act simply prohibited intercepting and
revealing telephone conversations. In the Justice Department’s view, it was permissible to
intercept conversations as long as they were not revealed to an agency outside the federal
280 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
Figure 6.5 Under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in illegal wiretapping.
(© Bettmann/Corbis)
government. President Roosevelt agreed to let the FBI resume wiretapping in cases
involving national security, though he asked that the wiretaps be kept to a minimum
and limited as much as possible to aliens [19].
Because it knew evidence obtained through wiretapping was inadmissible in court,
the FBI began maintaining two sets of files: the official files that contained legally ob-
tained evidence, and confidential files containing evidence obtained from wiretaps and
other confidential sources. In case of a trial, only the official file would be released to the
court [19].
The FBI was supposed to get permission from the Department of Justice before in-
stalling a wiretap, but in practice it did not always work that way. During his 48-year
reign as director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover routinely engaged in political surveillance,
tapping the telephones of senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices. The infor-
mation the FBI collected on these figures had great political value, even if the recordings
revealed no criminal activity. There is evidence Hoover used information gathered dur-
ing this surveillance to discredit congressmen who were trying to limit the power of the
FBI [19].
CHARLES KATZ v. UNITED STATES
A bug is a hidden microphone used for surveillance. In a series of decisions, the
US Supreme Court gradually came to an understanding that citizens should also be
protected from all electronic surveillance conducted without warrants, including bugs.
The key decision was rendered in 1967. Charles Katz used a public telephone to place
bets. The FBI placed a bug on the outside of the telephone booth to record Katz’s tele-
phone conversations. With this evidence, Katz was convicted of illegal gambling. The
6.4 Covert Government Surveillance 281
Justice Department argued that since it placed the microphone on the outside of the
telephone booth, it did not intrude into the space occupied by Katz [19]. In Charles Katz
v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Katz. Justice Potter Stewart wrote
that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” [22]. Katz entered the phone
booth with the reasonable expectation that his conversation would not be heard, and
what a person “seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may
be constitutionally protected” [22].
6.4.2 Operation Shamrock
During World War II, the US government censored all messages entering and leaving the
country, meaning US intelligence agencies had access to all telegram traffic. At the end of
the war, the censorship bureaucracy was shut down, and the Signal Security Agency (pre-
decessor to the National Security Agency) wanted to find a new way to get access to tele-
gram traffic. It contacted Western Union Telegraph Company, ITT Communications,
and RCA Communications, and asked them to allow it to make photographic copies of
all foreign government telegram traffic that entered, left, or transited the United States.
In other words, the Signal Security Agency asked these companies to break federal law in
the interests of national security. All three companies agreed to the request. The Signal
Security Agency gave this intelligence-gathering operation the name “Shamrock.”
When the National Security Agency (NSA) was formed in 1952, it inherited Op-
eration Shamrock. The sophistication of the surveillance operation took a giant leap
forward in the 1960s, when the telegram companies converted to computers. Now the
contents of telegrams could be transmitted electronically to the NSA, and the NSA could
use computers to search for key words and phrases.
In 1961 Robert Kennedy became the new attorney general of the United States, and
he immediately focused his attention on organized crime. Discovering that information
about mobsters was scattered piecemeal among the FBI, IRS, Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and other agencies, he convened a meeting in which investigators
from all of these agencies could exchange information. The Justice Department gave the
names of hundreds of alleged crime figures to the NSA, asking that these figures be put
on its “watch list.” Intelligence gathered by the NSA contributed to several prosecutions.
Also during the Kennedy administration, the FBI asked the NSA to put on its watch
list the names of US citizens and companies doing business with Cuba. The NSA sent
information gathered from intercepted telegrams and international telephone calls back
to the FBI.
During the Vietnam War, the Johnson and Nixon administrations hypothesized that
foreign governments were controlling or influencing the activities of American groups
opposed to the war. They asked the NSA to put the names of war protesters on its
watch list. Some of the people placed on the watch list included the Reverend Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr., the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver,
pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, folksinger Joan Baez, and actress Jane Fonda.
In 1969 President Nixon established the White House Task Force on Heroin Sup-
pression. The NSA soon became an active participant in the war on drugs, monitoring
282 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
the phone calls of people put on its drug watch list. Intelligence gathered by the NSA led
to convictions for drug-related crimes.
Facing hostile congressional and press scrutiny, the NSA called an end to Operation
Shamrock in May 1975 [23].
6.4.3 Carnivore Surveillance System
The FBI developed the Carnivore system in the late 1990s to monitor Internet traffic, in-
cluding email messages. The system itself consisted of a Windows PC and packet-sniffing
software capable of identifying and recording packets originating from or directed to a
particular IP address. Armed with a search warrant, the FBI would set up its Carnivore
system at the suspect’s Internet service provider [24].
In 2000 the Justice Department demanded that Earthlink, an Internet service
provider, allow the FBI to use Carnivore without a warrant. Earthlink filed a legal chal-
lenge questioning the FBI’s authority to do this under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, but a US District Court ruled against Earthlink [25, 26].
Between 1998 and 2000 the FBI used the Carnivore system about 25 times. In late
2001 the FBI stopped using Carnivore, replacing it with commercial software capable of
performing the same function [27].
6.4.4 Covert Activities after 9/11
The September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon spawned
new, secret intelligence-gathering operations within the United States. The same ques-
tion emerged after each activity became public knowledge: Is it constitutional?
NSA WIRETAPPING
Early in 2002 the Central Intelligence Agency captured several top al-Qaeda members,
along with their personal computers and cell phones. The CIA recovered telephone
numbers from these devices and provided them to the NSA. The NSA was eager to
eavesdrop on these telephone numbers, hoping to gather information that could be used
to disrupt future terrorist attacks. President Bush signed a presidential order allowing the
NSA to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and international emails initiated by
people living inside the United States, without first obtaining a search warrant [28].
The list of persons being monitored gradually expanded, as the NSA followed con-
nections from the original list of telephone numbers. At any one time, the NSA eaves-
dropped on up to 500 people inside the United States, including American citizens,
permanent residents, and foreigners. The NSA also monitored another 5,000 to 7,000
people living outside the United States at any one time [28].
Sources told the New York Times that the surveillance program had foiled at least
two al-Qaeda plots: Ohio truck driver Iyman Faris’s plan to “bring down the Brooklyn
Bridge with blowtorches” and another scheme to bomb British pubs and train stations.
Civil libertarians and some members of Congress objected to the program, arguing that
6.5 US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping 283
warrantless wiretapping of American citizens violated the Fourth Amendment to the US
Constitution [28].
TALON DATABASE
The US Department of Defense created the Threat and Local Observation Notices
(TALON) database in 2003. The purpose of the database was to collect reports of suspi-
cious activities or terrorist threats near military bases. These reports were submitted by
military personnel or civilians and then assessed by Department of Defense experts as
either “credible” or “not credible.”
In December 2005, NBC News reported that the database contained reports on
antiwar protests occurring far from military bases [29]. In July 2006, the Servicemem-
bers Legal Defense Network reported that the TALON database contained emails from
students at Southern Connecticut State University, the State University of New York at
Albany, the University of California at Berkeley, and William Paterson University of New
Jersey who were planning protests against on-campus military recruiting [30].
The Department of Defense removed many of these reports from TALON after
conducting an in-house review that concluded the database should only contain infor-
mation related to terrorist activity. The American Civil Liberties Union asked Congress
to take steps “to ensure that Americans may once again exercise their First Amendment
rights without fear that they will be tracked in a government database of suspicious
activities” [31]. In April 2007, the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence rec-
ommended that the TALON program be terminated [32]. The TALON database was
shut down on September 17, 2007 [33].
6.5 US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping
As we have seen, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 made wiretapping illegal,
and by 1967 the US Supreme Court had closed the door to wiretapping and bugging
performed without a warrant (court order). After the Katz decision, police were left
without any electronic surveillance tools in their fight against crime.
Meanwhile, the United States was in the middle of the Vietnam War. In 1968 the
country was rocked by violent antiwar demonstrations and the assassinations of Martin
Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Law enforcement agencies pressured Congress to
allow wiretapping under some circumstances.
6.5.1 Title III
Congress responded by passing Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968. Title III allows a police agency that has obtained a court order to tap a phone
for up to 30 days [19].
The government continued to argue that in cases of national security, agencies
should be able to tap phones without a warrant. In 1972 the Supreme Court rejected this
284 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
argument when it ruled that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless wiretapping,
even in cases of national security [19].
6.5.2 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) provides for judicial and con-
gressional oversight of the government’s covert surveillance of foreign governments and
their agents. The law allows the president to authorize electronic surveillance of foreign
nationals for up to one year without a court order, as long as there is little chance that the
surveillance will reveal the contents of communications with any US citizens. If commu-
nications with US citizens are to be monitored, the government must get a court order
from the FISA Court.
FISA was amended by the Protect America Act of 2007. This act allows the US gov-
ernment to wiretap communications beginning or ending in a foreign country without
oversight by the FISA Court.
In June 2013, the British newspaper the Guardian disclosed it had received a top se-
cret document outlining how the National Security Agency had obtained direct access
to the servers at Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and other Internet giants [34]. (The docu-
ment was provided by Edward Snowden, a former employee of NSA contractor Booz
Allen Hamilton.) The secret program, called PRISM, enables the NSA to access stored
information such as email messages and monitor live communications such as Skype
and PalTalk conversations without first obtaining search warrants, when the NSA has a
reasonable suspicion that the person being investigated is a foreigner outside the United
States. According to the secret document, the NSA gained access to the servers of Mi-
crosoft in 2007; Yahoo in 2008; Google and Facebook in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype
and AOL in 2011; and Apple in 2012.
All the companies that responded to a request for information by the Guardian
denied any knowledge of the PRISM program. The Obama administration provided the
following statement: “The Guardian and Washington Post articles refer to collection of
communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any person located within
the United States” [34].
6.5.3 Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Congress updated the wiretapping law in 1986 with the passage of the Electronic Com-
munications Privacy Act (ECPA). The ECPA allows police to attach two kinds of surveil-
lance devices to a suspect’s phone line. If the suspect makes a phone call, a pen register
displays the number being dialed. If the suspect gets a phone call, a trap-and-trace device
displays the caller’s phone number. While a court order is needed to approve the installa-
tion of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, prosecutors do not need to demonstrate
probable cause, and the approval is virtually automatic.
The ECPA also allows police to conduct roving wiretaps—wiretaps that move from
phone to phone—if they can demonstrate the suspect is attempting to avoid surveillance
by using many different phones [19].
6.5 US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping 285
6.5.4 Stored Communications Act
The Stored Communications Act, part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
has significant privacy implications related to the collection of email messages. Under
this law, the government does not need a search warrant to obtain from an Internet ser-
vice provider email messages more than 180 days old. In other words, when a computer
user allows an Internet service provider to store his or her email messages, the user is
giving up the expectation of privacy of that information [35].
In the past it had been understood that the government needed a court order to
gain access to emails under 180 days old, but in 2010 the government asked Yahoo to
turn over emails under 180 days old that had already been read by the recipient [36].
Yahoo challenged this request in federal court, supported by Google, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, and the Center for Democracy & Technology, and the government
withdrew its demand for the emails.
Nearly 50 companies and privacy rights organizations, including AOL, the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, AT&T, Consumer Action,
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft, have
joined forces to form an organization called Digital Due Process, which is lobbying
Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In the past Internet
service providers simply transmitted email messages from senders to recipients. Today
most Internet service providers supply convenient, long-term storage of their customers’
emails, and millions of customers take advantage of this service to hold their messages
indefinitely. With the advent of cloud computing, companies such as Amazon, Google,
and Microsoft are storing sensitive documents and other materials that in the past would
have been held on personal computers. The view of the Digital Due Process coalition is
that the government should not be able to obtain an email message, document, or photo
from an Internet or cloud service provider without a proper search warrant [37].
6.5.5 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
The implementation of digital phone networks interfered with the wiretapping ability of
the FBI and other organizations. In response to these technological changes, Congress
passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), also
known as the Digital Telephony Act. This law required that networking equipment used
by phone companies be designed or modified so that law enforcement agencies can trace
calls, listen in on telephone calls, and intercept email messages. CALEA thereby ensured
that court-ordered wiretapping would still be possible even as new digital technologies
were introduced.
CALEA left unanswered many important details about the kind of information the
FBI would be able to extract from digital phone calls. The precise requirements were to
be worked out between the FBI and industry representatives. The FBI asked for many
capabilities, including the ability to intercept digits typed by the caller after the phone
call was placed. This feature would let it catch credit card numbers and bank account
numbers, for example. In 1999 the FCC finally issued the guidelines, which included this
capability and five more requested by the FBI [38]. Privacy rights organizations argued
these capabilities went beyond the authorization of CALEA [39]. Telecommunications
286 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
companies claimed that implementing these capabilities would cost them billions of
dollars [40]. Nevertheless, in August 2005, the FCC gave Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) and certain other broadband providers 18 months to modify their systems as
necessary so that law enforcement agencies could wiretap calls made using their services
[41]. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups challenged the FCC decision
in court, blocking the implementation of the order. Since then, the Department of
Justice has pursued a legislative solution, asking Congress to revise CALEA and explicitly
authorize the wiretapping of online communications, but to date no legislation has been
passed [42].
6.6 USA PATRIOT Act
On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners in
the United States and turned them into flying bombs. Two of the planes flew into New
York’s World Trade Center, a third hit the Pentagon, and the fourth crashed in a field
in Pennsylvania. Soon after these attacks, which resulted in about 3,000 deaths and the
destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the United States Congress
passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, henceforth referred
to as the Patriot Act [43]. The Patriot Act has raised many questions about the extent to
which government agencies should be able to collect information about individuals in
the United States without first obtaining a search warrant.
6.6.1 Provisions of the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act amended many existing laws. Its provisions fall into four principal
categories:
1. Providing federal law enforcement and intelligence officials with greater authority
to monitor communications
2. Giving the Secretary of the Treasury greater powers to regulate banks, preventing
them from being used to launder foreign money
3. Making it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States
4. Defining new crimes and penalties for terrorist activity
We focus on those provisions of the Patriot Act that most directly affect the privacy of
persons living inside the United States.
The Patriot Act expands the kinds of information that law enforcement officials
can gather with pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. It allows police to use pen
registers on the Internet to track email addresses and URLs. The law does not require
they demonstrate probable cause. To obtain a warrant, police simply certify that the
information to be gained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Law enforcement agencies seeking to install a wiretap or a pen register/trap-and-
trace device have always been required to get a court order from a judge with juris-
6.6 USA PATRIOT Act 287
diction over the location where the device was to be installed. The Patriot Act extends
the jurisdiction of court-ordered wiretaps to the entire country. A judge in New York
can authorize the installation of a device in California, for example. The act also al-
lows the nationwide application of court-ordered search warrants for terrorist-related
investigations.
The Patriot Act broadened the number of circumstances under which roving
surveillance can take place. Previously, roving surveillance could only be done for the
purpose of law enforcement, and the agency had to demonstrate to the court that the
person under investigation actually used the device to be monitored. The Patriot Act
allows roving surveillance to be performed for the purpose of intelligence, and the gov-
ernment does not have to prove that the person under investigation actually uses the
device to be tapped. Additionally, it does not require that the law enforcement agency
report back to the authorizing judge regarding the number of devices monitored and
the results of the monitoring.
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials wishing to intercept communica-
tions to and from a person who has illegally gained access to a computer system do not
need a court order if they have the permission of the owner of the computer system.
The Patriot Act allows courts to authorize law enforcement officers to search a per-
son’s premises without first serving a search warrant when there is “reasonable cause to
believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have
an adverse effect.” Officers may seize property that “constitutes evidence of a criminal
offense in violation of the laws of the United States,” even if that offense is unrelated to
terrorism.
6.6.2 National Security Letters
The Patriot Act expanded the use of National Security Letters, making it easier for the
FBI to collect Internet, business, medical, educational, library, and church/mosque/
synagogue records. To obtain a search warrant authorizing the collection of records
about an individual, the FBI merely needs to issue a National Security Letter stating that
the records are related to an ongoing investigation. (The Patriot Act does specifically
prohibit the FBI from investigating citizens solely on the basis of activities protected
by the First Amendment.) A typical National Security Letter contains a gag order that
forbids the letter’s recipient from disclosing receipt of the letter. National Security Letters
are controversial because, unlike warrants, they do not require the approval of a judge.
That means there is no need for the FBI to show probable cause. Between 2003 and 2006,
the FBI issued 192,499 National Security Letters [44].
National Security Letters have prompted several legal challenges by the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). One of these cases involved the Library Connec-
tion, a consortium of 26 libraries in Connecticut. In July 2005, the FBI sent a Na-
tional Security Letter to the Library Connection, demanding records of a patron who
had used a particular computer. This happened while Congress was debating reau-
thorization of the Patriot Act, and an important point in the debate was whether
288 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
the FBI had actually attempted to use the Patriot Act to get information from li-
braries. The ACLU sought an emergency court order that would have allowed rep-
resentatives of the Library Connection to tell Congress that they had received a Na-
tional Security Letter. In September 2005, a district court judge in Connecticut ruled
that the National Security Letter’s gag order violated the First Amendment to the
US Constitution, but the executive branch continued to enforce it. In April 2006,
six weeks after Congress had reauthorized the Patriot Act, the FBI dropped the gag
order and its demand for the information. The ACLU hailed the government’s deci-
sion as a victory “not just for librarians but for all Americans who value their pri-
vacy” [45].
6.6.3 Responses to the Patriot Act
Critics of the Patriot Act warn that its provisions give too many powers to the federal
government. Despite language in the Patriot Act to the contrary, civil libertarians are
concerned that law enforcement agencies may use their new powers to reduce the rights
of law-abiding Americans, particularly those rights expressed in the First and Fourth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
First Amendment rights center around the freedom of speech and the free exercise
of religion. We have seen that in the past, the FBI and the NSA used illegal wiretaps to
investigate people who had expressed unpopular political views. In November 2003, the
ACLU reported that public apprehension about the Patriot Act had led to a significant
drop in attendance and donations at mosques [46].
Critics maintain that other provisions of the Patriot Act undermine the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment:
. The Patriot Act allows police to install Internet pen registers without demonstrating
probable cause that the suspect is engaged in a criminal activity. By revealing the
URLs of Web sites visited by a suspect, a pen register is a much more powerful
surveillance tool on the Internet than it is on a telephone network.
. The Patriot Act allows for court orders authorizing roving surveillance that do not
“particularly describe the place to be searched.”
. It allows law enforcement agencies, under certain circumstances, to search homes
and seize evidence without first serving a search warrant.
. It allows the FBI to obtain—without showing probable cause—a warrant authoriz-
ing the seizure of business, medical, educational, and library records of suspects.
The Council of the American Library Association passed a resolution on the Patriot
Act in January 2003. The resolution affirms every person’s rights to inquiry and free
expression. It “urges librarians everywhere to defend and support user privacy and free
and open access to knowledge and information,” and it “urges libraries to adopt and
implement patron privacy and record retention policies” that minimize the collection
of records about the activities of individual patrons [47]. More than four hundred cities
and several states have also passed anti–Patriot Act resolutions [48].
6.6 USA PATRIOT Act 289
(Tribune Media Services TMS Reprints)
As alluded to earlier, the federal government issues about 50,000 National Security
Letters every year [49]. Google is an obvious organization for law enforcement agencies
to contact, given the significant amount of information it collects from individuals who
use its search engine. In December 2009, Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, told CNBC, “If
you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing
it in the first place.” Schmidt admitted Google is obliged to release personal data to law
enforcement agencies, saying, “The reality is that search engines—including Google—
do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all
subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information
could be made available to the authorities” [50].
6.6.4 Successes and Failures
According to Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the
Patriot Act has helped the government in its fight against terrorism by allowing greater
information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies and by giving
law enforcement agencies new investigative tools—“many of which have been used for
years to catch mafia dons and drug kingpins” [51]. Terrorism investigations have led to
charges being brought against 361 individuals in the United States. Of these, 191 have
been convicted or pled guilty, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and John Walker
Lindh, who fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan. More than 500 individuals linked to
the September 11th attacks have been removed from the United States. Terrorist cells in
Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa, and Portland (the “Portland Seven”)2 have been broken up [51].
2. The “Portland Seven” included six American Muslim men accused of attempting to travel to
Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban.
290 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
Unfortunately, a few innocent bystanders have been affected by the war against
terrorism. A notable example is Brandon Mayfield.
During the morning rush hour on March 11, 2004, ten bombs exploded on four
commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 people and wounding more than 2,000
others. The Spanish government retrieved a partial fingerprint from a bag of detonators,
and the FBI linked the fingerprint to Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, Oregon
[52].
Without revealing their search warrant, FBI agents secretly entered Mayfield’s home
multiple times, making copies of documents and computer hard drives, collecting ten
DNA samples, removing six cigarette butts for DNA analysis, and taking 355 digital
photographs. The FBI also put Mayfield under electronic surveillance [53]. On May
6, 2004, the FBI arrested Mayfield as a material witness and detained him for two
weeks. After the Spanish government announced that it had matched the fingerprints
to Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian national living in Spain, a judge ordered that Mayfield
be released. The FBI publicly apologized for the fingerprint misidentification [52].
Mayfield said his detention was “an abuse of the judicial process” that “shouldn’t
happen to anybody” [52]. He said, “I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches,
sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical
pain, and humiliation” [54]. The only evidence against Mayfield was a partial finger-
print match that even the Spanish police found dubious. Mayfield had not left the United
States in more than a decade, and he had no connections with any terrorist organiza-
tions. Some civil rights groups suggest Mayfield was targeted by the FBI because of his
religious beliefs. The affidavit that the FBI used to get an arrest warrant pointed out that
Mayfield “had converted to Islam, is married to an Egyptian-born woman, and had once
briefly represented a member of the Portland Seven in a child-custody case” [55]. May-
field sued the US government for continuing to investigate him after the Spanish police
had eliminated him as a suspect, and in November 2006, the government issued a formal
apology and agreed to pay him $2 million [54].
6.6.5 Patriot Act Renewal
Most of the provisions of the Patriot Act have now been made permanent, but three
provisions of particular concern to civil liberties groups must be renewed periodically—
the provisions permitting the use of roving wiretaps, the surveillance of “lone wolf ”
suspects not linked to terrorist groups, and the seizure of business, medical, educational,
and library records without showing probable cause. In May 2011, President Obama
signed into law a four-year extension of these provisions [56].
6.6.6 Long-Standing NSA Access to Telephone Records
Beginning in 2011, two members of the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate, Ron
Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Arizona, repeatedly spoke out against domestic
spying. In May 2011, Senator Wyden said, “I want to deliver a warning this afternoon:
when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the
Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry” [57].
6.7 Regulation of Public and Private Databases 291
Two years later Americans began to learn what Senator Wyden was talking about.
On June 5, 2013, the British newspaper the Guardian revealed that based on a request
from the FBI, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had ordered Verizon to
provide to the National Security Agency on a daily basis records of all of its customers’
calls from April 25, 2013, to July 19, 2013 [58]. (Edward Snowden, a former employee
of NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, was responsible for leaking the information to
the Guardian.) These call records, also called telephony metadata, included the date and
time of each telephone call, the location of the phone making the call, the duration of
the conversation, and “other identifying information.” Verizon was not asked to provide
the contents of the conversations. The order from the FISC expressly prohibited Verizon
from revealing to the public the FBI’s request for this information. Opined the Guardian,
“These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA’s mission has transformed from
an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses
increasingly on domestic communications” [58].
The Obama administration downplayed the revelation. Deputy Press Secretary Josh
Earnest said that the court orders for telephone records “are something that have been
in place a number of years now” [59]. Diane Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, confirmed that position: “As far as I know, this is an exact three-month
renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years” [60].
Senator Udall said, “this sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us
and is the kind of government overreach I’ve said Americans would find shocking”
[61]. Former Vice President Al Gore called the blanket order “obscenely outrageous”
[61]. Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot
Act, added, “I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the
requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people
is excessive and un-American” [61].
6.7 Regulation of Public and Private Databases
In this section we switch our focus to the information-processing category of Solove’s
taxonomy of privacy. (Our coverage of issues related to information-processing and the
government continues through Section 6.9.)
Once organizations have collected information, they can manipulate and use it in a
variety of ways, and some of these uses have privacy implications. We begin by describing
the social conditions that led to the creation of the Code of Fair Information Practices
and the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974. We then move on to legislation that regulates
databases managed by private organizations.
6.7.1 Code of Fair Information Practices
In 1965 the Director of the Budget commissioned a consulting committee, composed
largely of economists, to look at problems caused by the decentralization of statistical
data across many federal agencies. The Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Economic Research Service of the Department
292 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
of Agriculture maintained independent computer databases, making it impossible for
economists and other social scientists to combine information about individuals. Carl
Kaysen, the chair of the committee, described it this way:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to make informed and intelligent pol-
icy decisions on such questions in the area of poverty as welfare payments, fam-
ily allowances, and the like, simply because we lack sufficient “dis-aggregated”
information—breakdowns by the many relevant social and economic variables—
that is both wide in coverage and readily usable. The information the Government
does have is scattered among a dozen agencies, collected on a variety of not neces-
sarily consistent bases, and not really accessible to any single group of policy-makers
or research analysts. A test of the proposition, for example, that poor performance
in school and poor prospects of social mobility are directly related to family size
would require data combining information on at least family size and composition,
family income, regional location, city size, school performance, and post-school oc-
cupational history over a period of years in a way that is simply not now possible,
even though the separate items of information were all fed into some part of the
Federal statistical system at some time. [62]
After Kaysen’s committee recommended the creation of a National Data Center,
there was an immediate outcry from citizens and legislators expressing concerns about
possible abuses of a massive, centralized government database containing detailed infor-
mation about millions of Americans. The US House of Representatives created a Special
Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, which held hearings about these issues [63].
In the early 1970s, Elliot Richardson, the secretary of the US Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, convened a group to recommend policies for the development
of government databases that would protect the privacy of American citizens. The secre-
tary’s Advisory Committee of Automated Personal Data Systems, Records, Computers,
and the Rights of Citizens produced a report for Congress, which included the following
“bill of rights” for the Information Age [64]:
�
CODE OF FAIR INFORMATION PRACTICES
1. There must be no personal data record-keeping systems whose very
existence is secret.
2. There must be a way for a person to find out what information about the
person is in a record and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for a person to prevent information about the person
that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for
other purposes without the person’s consent.
4. There must be a way for a person to correct or amend a record of
identifiable information about the person.
5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of
identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their
intended use and must take precautions to prevent misuses of the data.
�
6.7 Regulation of Public and Private Databases 293
At about the same time that the Richardson Committee was established in the
United States, similar efforts were under way in Europe. In fact, a year before the
Richardson Committee issued the report containing the Code of Fair Information Prac-
tices, a Committee on Privacy in the United Kingdom released its own report containing
many of the same principles. Sweden passed privacy laws consistent with fair informa-
tion practices in 1973, and later that decade the Federal Republic of Germany and France
followed suit [65].
6.7.2 Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 represents Congress’s codification of the principles described in
the Code of Fair Information Practices. While the Privacy Act does allow individuals in
some cases to get access to federal files containing information about them, in other
respects it has fallen short of the desires of privacy advocates. In particular, they say
the Privacy Act has not been effective in reducing the flow of personal information
into governmental databases, preventing agencies from sharing information with each
other, or preventing unauthorized access to the data. They claim agencies have been
unresponsive to outside attempts to bring them into alignment with the provisions of
the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act has the following principal limitations [66]:
1. The Privacy Act applies only to government databases.
Far more information is held in private databases, which are excluded. This is an
enormous loophole, because government agencies can purchase information from
private organizations that have the data they want.
2. The Privacy Act only covers records indexed by a personal identifier.
Records about individuals that are not indexed by name or another identifying
number are excluded. For example, a former IRS agent tried to gain access to a
file containing derogatory information about himself, but the judge ruled he did
not have a right to see the file, since it was indexed under the name of another IRS
employee.
3. No one in the federal government is in charge of enforcing the provisions of the Privacy
Act.
Federal agencies have taken it upon themselves to determine which databases they
can exempt. The IRS has exempted its database containing the names of taxpayers
it is investigating. The Department of Justice has announced that the FBI does not
have to ensure the reliability of the data in its NCIC databases.
4. The Privacy Act allows one agency to share records with another agency as long as they
are for a “routine use.”
Each agency is able to decide for itself what “routine use” means. The Department
of Justice has encouraged agencies to define “routine use” as broadly as possible.
Although the Privacy Act applies only to government databases, Congress has
passed legislation regulating how some private institutions manage databases contain-
ing sensitive information about individuals, and these laws put into effect many of the
principles of the Code of Fair Information Practices. In the remainder of this section,
we survey some of the most influential of these laws.
294 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
6.7.3 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Credit bureaus and other consumer reporting agencies maintain information on your
bill-paying record, whether you’ve been sued or arrested, and if you’ve filed for bank-
ruptcy. They sell reports to other organizations that are trying to determine the credit-
worthiness of consumers who are applying for credit, applying for a job, or trying to
rent an apartment. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, passed in 1970 and revised in 1996,
was designed to promote the accuracy and privacy of information used by credit bureaus
and other consumer reporting agencies to produce consumer reports. It also ensures that
negative information does not haunt a consumer for a lifetime.
The three major credit bureaus are Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. According
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, these credit bureaus may keep negative information
about a consumer for a maximum of seven years. There are several exceptions to this
rule. The two most important are that information about criminal convictions may be
kept indefinitely, and bankruptcy information may be held for 10 years.
6.7.4 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2004 requires the three major credit
bureaus to provide consumers a free copy of their credit report every 12 months. Con-
sumers can use this opportunity to detect and correct errors in their credit reports. The
bureaus do not issue the reports automatically; consumers must take the initiative and
request them from AnnualCreditReport.com.
The law also has provisions to reduce identity theft. It requires the truncation of
account numbers on credit card receipts, and it establishes the National Fraud Alert
System. Victims of identity theft may put a fraud alert on their credit files, warning credit
card issuers that they must take “reasonable steps” to verify the requester’s identity before
granting credit.
6.7.5 Financial Services Modernization Act
The Financial Services Modernization Act (also called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of
1999) contains dozens of provisions related to how financial institutions do business.
One of the major provisions of the law allows the creation of “financial supermarkets”
offering banking, insurance, and brokerage services.
The law also contains some privacy-related provisions. It requires financial institu-
tions to disclose their privacy policies to their customers. When a customer establishes
an account, and at least once per year thereafter, the institution must let the customer
know the kinds of information it collects and how it uses that information. These no-
tices must contain an opt-out clause that explains to customers how they can request
that their confidential information not be revealed to other companies. The law requires
financial institutions to develop policies that prevent unauthorized access of their cus-
tomers’ confidential information [67].
6.8 Data Mining by the Government 295
6.8 Data Mining by the Government
Data mining is the process of searching through one or more databases looking for
patterns or relationships among the data. In this section we continue our coverage of the
information-processing category of Solove’s taxonomy by surveying a few well-known
data-mining projects run by government agencies.
6.8.1 Internal Revenue Service Audits
To identify taxpayers who have paid less in taxes than they owe, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) uses computer-matching and data-mining strategies. First, it matches in-
formation on the tax form with information provided by employers and financial insti-
tutions. This is a straightforward way to detect unreported income.
Second, the IRS audits a couple of million tax returns every year. Its goal is to
select the most promising returns—those containing errors resulting in underpayment
of taxes. The IRS uses a computerized system called the discriminant function (DIF) to
score every tax return. The DIF score is an indicator of how many irregularities there are
on a tax form, compared to carefully constructed profiles of correct tax returns. About
60 percent of tax returns audited by the IRS are selected due to their high DIF scores.
6.8.2 Syndromic Surveillance Systems
Another application of data mining by the government is protecting society from immi-
nent dangers.
A syndromic surveillance system is a computerized system that analyzes 911 calls,
visits to the emergency room, school absenteeism, purchases of prescription drugs,
and Internet searches to find patterns that might indicate the onset of an epidemic, an
environmental problem leading to illnesses, or bioterrorism.
In the fall of 2002, a syndromic surveillance system in New York City detected a
surge in people seeking treatment for vomiting and diarrhea. These symptoms were the
first signs of an outbreak of a Norwalk-type virus. The alert generated by the system
allowed city officials to warn doctors about the outbreak and advise them to be particu-
larly careful about handling the highly contagious body fluids of their affected patients
[68].
6.8.3 Telecommunications Records Database
Shortly after September 11, 2001, several major telecommunications providers began
turning over the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans to the National
Security Agency, without a court order. The NSA was not monitoring or recording the
actual conversations; instead, it was analyzing calling patterns in order to detect potential
terrorist networks. [69].
After USA Today revealed the existence of the database in May 2006, more than a
dozen class-action lawsuits were filed against the telecommunications companies. In Au-
gust 2006, a federal judge in Detroit ruled the program to be illegal and unconstitutional,
296 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
violating several statutes as well as the First and Fourth Amendments to the US Consti-
tution [70]. In July 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the
ruling on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit forward.
In other words, the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that they personally were
victims of warrantless wiretapping.
6.8.4 Predictive Policing
Predictive policing is the use of data mining to deploy police officers to areas where
crimes are more likely to occur. It is based on the observation that individual criminals
act in a predictable way. For example, criminals tend to frequent familiar areas. If a car
is burglarized, the probability increases that another car in the neighborhood will be
burglarized. The times at which crimes occur can also fall into predictable patterns [71].
Police in Santa Cruz, California, created a database of information about vehic-
ular, residential, and commercial burglaries, then used data mining to produce maps
containing 15 “hotspots” to distribute to police officers as they began their shifts. The de-
partment asked officers to make a point of passing through the hotspot areas when they
were not handling other calls. Over the first six months of the experiment, the number
of burglaries declined 19 percent [71]. The Los Angeles Police Department implemented
a similar system in an area with 300,000 residents and observed a 12 percent decline
in property crime. Predictive policing is now being practiced in many cities across the
United States [71].
6.9 National Identification Card
A great deal can be learned about an individual when information collected at different
places and times is combined. In order to combine information from two records, the
records must share a common key. A name cannot be used as a common key, because
more than one person can have the same name, but if every individual had a unique
identification number and that identification number appeared in every database record
referring to that individual, then all of these records could theoretically be combined into
a massive “electronic dossier” documenting that person’s life. In this section we survey
the debate around the establishment of a national identification card in the United
States.
6.9.1 History and Role of the Social Security Number
The Social Security Act of 1935 established two social insurance programs in the United
States: a federal system of old-age benefits to retired persons, and a federal-state system
of unemployment insurance. Before the system could be implemented, employers and
workers needed to become registered. The Social Security Board contracted with the
US Postal Service to distribute applications for Social Security cards. The post office
collected the forms, typed the Social Security cards, and returned them to the applicants.
In this way over 35 million Social Security cards were issued in 1936–1937 [72].
6.9 National Identification Card 297
The US government initially stated that Social Security numbers (SSNs) would be
used solely by the Social Security Administration and not as a national identification
card. In fact, from 1946 to 1972, the Social Security Administration put the following
legend on the bottom of the cards it issued: “FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES—
NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION.” However, use of the SSN has gradually increased. Pres-
ident Roosevelt ordered, in 1943, that federal agencies use SSNs as identifiers in new
federal databases. In 1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the SSN as the
taxpayer identification number. Because banks report interest to the IRS, people must
provide their SSN when they open a bank account. The SSN is typically requested on
applications for credit cards. Motor vehicle departments and some other state agencies
received permission to use SSNs as identification numbers in 1976. The IRS now requires
parents to provide the SSNs of their children over one year old on income tax forms in
order to claim them as dependents. For this reason, children now get a SSN soon after
they are born. Many private organizations ask people to provide SSNs for identification.
The SSN has become a de facto national identification number in the United States.
Unfortunately, the SSN has serious defects that make it a poor identification num-
ber. The first problem with SSNs is that they are not unique. When Social Security cards
were first issued by post offices, different post offices accidentally assigned the same SSN
to different people. In 1938 wallet manufacturer E. H. Ferree included sample Social Se-
curity cards in one of its products. More than 40,000 people purchasing the wallets from
Woolworth stores thought the cards were real and used the sample card’s number as their
SSN [73].
A second defect of SSNs is that they are rarely checked. Millions of Social Security
cards have been issued to applicants without verifying that the information provided
by the applicants is correct. Many, if not most, organizations asking for a SSN do not
actually require the applicant to show a card, making it easy for criminals to supply fake
SSNs.
A third defect of SSNs is that they have no error-detecting capability, such as a
check digit at the end of the number. A check digit enables computer systems to detect
common data entry errors, such as getting one digit wrong or transposing two adjacent
digits. If someone makes one of these mistakes, the data entry program can detect
the error and ask the person to retype the number. In the case of SSNs, if a person
accidentally types in the wrong number, there is a high likelihood that it is a valid SSN
(albeit one assigned to a different person). Hence it is easy to contaminate databases with
records containing incorrect SSNs [74]. Similarly, without check digits or another error
detection mechanism, there is no simple way for a system to catch people who are simply
making up a phony SSN.
6.9.2 Debate over a National ID Card
The events of September 11, 2001, resurrected the debate over the introduction of a
national identification card for Americans.
Proponents of a national identification card point out numerous benefits to its
adoption:
298 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
1. A national identification card would be more reliable than existing forms of identi-
fication.
Social Security cards and driver’s licenses are too easy to forge. A modern card could
incorporate a photograph as well as a thumbprint or other biometric data.
2. A national identification card could reduce illegal immigration.
Requiring employers to check a tamper-proof, forgery-proof national identification
card would prevent illegal immigrants from working in the United States. If illegal
immigrants couldn’t get work, they wouldn’t enter the United States in the first
place.
3. A national identification card would reduce crime.
Currently it’s too easy for criminals to mask their true identity. A tamper-proof
national identification card would allow police to positively identify the people they
apprehend.
4. National identification cards do not undermine democracy.
Many democratic countries already use national ID cards, including Belgium,
France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain.
Opponents of a national identification card suggest these harms may result from its
adoption:
1. A national identification card does not guarantee that the apparent identity of an
individual is that person’s actual identity.
Driver’s licenses and passports are supposed to be unique identifiers, but there are
many criminals who produce fake driver’s licenses and passports. Even a hard-to-
forge identification card system may be compromised by insiders. For example, a
ring of motor vehicle department employees in Virginia was caught selling fake
driver’s licenses [75].
2. It is impossible to create a biometric-based national identification card that is 100
percent accurate.
All known systems suffer from false positives (erroneously reporting that the person
does not match the ID) and false negatives (failing to report that the person and
ID do not match). Biometric-based systems may still be beaten by determined,
technology-savvy criminals [75].
3. There is no evidence that the institution of a national ID card would lead to a reduction
in crime.
In fact, the principal problem faced by police is not the inability to make positive
identifications of suspects but the inability to obtain evidence needed for a success-
ful prosecution.
4. A national identification card makes it simpler for government agencies to perform data
mining on the activities of its citizens.
According to Peter Neumann and Lauren Weinstein, “The opportunities for over-
zealous surveillance and serious privacy abuses are almost limitless, as are opportu-
nities for masquerading, identity theft, and draconian social engineering on a grand
6.9 National Identification Card 299
scale. . . . The road to an Orwellian police state of universal tracking, but actually
reduced security, could well be paved with hundreds of millions of such [national
identification] cards” [75].
5. While most people may feel they have nothing to fear from a national identification
card system since they are law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding people are subject to
fraud and the indiscretions and errors of others.
Suppose a teacher, a doctor, or someone else in a position of authority creates
a file containing misleading or erroneous information. Files created by people in
positions of authority can be difficult to remove [76].
In a society with decentralized record keeping, old school or medical records
are less likely to be accessed. The harm caused by inaccurate records is reduced. If
all records are centralized around national identification numbers, files containing
inaccurate or misleading information could haunt individuals for the rest of their
lives.
6.9.3 The REAL ID Act
In May 2005, President George W. Bush signed the REAL ID Act, which would signif-
icantly change driver’s licenses in the United States. To date, this law has not been put
into effect. The motivation for passing the REAL ID Act was to make the driver’s license
a more reliable form of identification. Critics, however, say the act would create a de
facto national ID card in the United States.
The REAL ID Act requires that every state issue new driver’s licenses. These licenses
will be needed in order to open a bank account, fly on a commercial airplane, enter a
federal building, or receive a government service, such as a Social Security check. The
law makes it more difficult for impostors to get driver’s licenses, by requiring applicants
to supply four different kinds of documentation and requiring state employees to verify
these documents using federal databases. Because the new driver’s license contains a
biometric identifier, it is supposed to be a stronger credential than current licenses [77].
Although each state is responsible for issuing new driver’s licenses to its citizens,
these licenses must meet federal standards. The license must include the person’s full
legal name, date of birth, gender, driver’s license number, digital photograph, legal ad-
dress, and signature. All data on the license must be in machine-readable form. The
license must have physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeit-
ing, or duplication [78]. The federal government estimates the total cost of implement-
ing REAL ID nationwide to be more than $23 billion—or more than $100 per driver’s
license.
Supporters of the measure say making the driver’s license a more reliable identifier
will have numerous benefits. Law enforcement is easier when police can be more certain
that a driver’s license correctly identifies the individual carrying it. Society is better
off when parents ducking child support and criminals on the run cannot change their
identities by crossing a state border and getting a new driver’s license under a different
name [79].
300 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
Some critics fear having machine-readable information on driver’s licenses will
aggravate problems with identity theft. Each state is required to share all this information
with every other state and the federal government. American Civil Liberties Union
lawyer Timothy Sparapani said, “We will have all this information in one electronic
format, in one linked file, and we’re giving access to tens of thousands of state DMV
employees and federal agents” [80].
Proponents of the bill say such fears are unjustified. They suggest that the personal
information actually available on the new driver’s license is relatively insignificant com-
pared with all the other personal information circulating around cyberspace [79].
The Department of Homeland Security pushed back the deadline for implementing
the new driver’s licenses from 2008 to 2013. Most states did not meet the deadline. In
December 2012 the DHS announced that it would provide temporary deferments to
states that had not yet issued new driver’s licenses meeting the criteria of the REAL ID
Act. As of April 18, 2013, a total of 19 states had come into compliance with the REAL
ID Act [81].
6.10 Information Dissemination
We now consider the information dissemination category of Solove’s taxonomy. After
we survey three federal laws that restrict the dissemination of personal information that
organizations have collected, we discuss the Freedom of Information Act, designed to
promote open government by allowing news organizations and private citizens to access
records maintained by federal agencies. We also explore how information collected by
the government for one purpose—collecting tolls—is being used as evidence of people’s
whereabouts in both criminal and civil cases.
6.10.1 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) provides students 18 years of age
and older the right to review their educational records and to request changes to records
that contain erroneous information. Students also have the right to prevent information
in these records from being released without their permission, except under certain
circumstances. For students under the age of 18, these rights are held by their parents
or guardians. FERPA applies to all educational institutions that receive funds from the
US Department of Education.
6.10.2 Video Privacy Protection Act
In 1988 President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to the US Supreme
Court (Figure 6.6). Bork was a noted conservative, and his nomination was controver-
sial. A Washington, DC, video store provided a list of Bork’s video rental records to a
reporter for the Washington City Paper, which published the list. While the intention of
the paper was most likely to embarrass Bork, it also had the effect of prompting Congress
to pass the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. According to this law, video providers
(including providers of online videos) cannot disclose rental records without the written
6.10 Information Dissemination 301
Figure 6.6 Judge Robert Bork, a nominee to the US Supreme Court, had to endure the
publication of his video rental records by the Washington City Paper. (AP photo/Charles
Tasnadi)
consent of the customer. In addition, organizations must destroy personally identifiable
information about rentals within a year of the date when this information is no longer
needed for the purpose for which it was collected.
6.10.3 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
As part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Congress
directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to come up with guide-
lines for protecting the privacy of patients. These guidelines went into effect in April
2003. They limit how doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and insurance companies can use
medical information collected from patients.
The regulations attempt to limit the exchange of information among health care
providers to that information necessary to care for the patient. They forbid health care
providers from releasing information to life insurance companies, banks, or other busi-
nesses without specific signed authorization from the person being treated. Health care
providers must provide their patients with a notice describing how they use the infor-
mation they gather. Patients have the right to see their medical records and to request
corrections to errors they find in those records [82].
6.10.4 Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act is a law designed to ensure that the public has access to
US government records. Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, it applies only to
302 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
the executive branch of the federal government, not the legislative or judicial branches.
The act carries a presumption that the government will release the requested records.
If an agency does not disclose records, it must explain why the information is being
withheld.
There are nine exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, spelling out those
situations in which the government may legitimately withhold information. For exam-
ple, a document may be withheld if it has been classified as secret for national defense
or foreign policy reasons. The government may withhold the release of documents con-
taining trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. Another ex-
emption deals with documents related to law enforcement investigations.
6.10.5 Toll Booth Records Used in Court
E-ZPass is an automatic toll collection system used on most toll roads, bridges, and
tunnels between Illinois and Maine. Drivers who have installed an E-ZPass tag (an RFID
transponder) in their vehicles are able to pass through toll booths without stopping to
pay an attendant. Instead, an E-ZPass reader installed in the automated toll lane gets
information from the tags of the cars that pass through and deducts the appropriate toll
from each driver’s account.
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has installed tag
readers at locations other than toll booths in order to track the progress of individual
vehicles. In this way the system can provide helpful information to other drivers by
displaying on electronic signs above the turnpike the estimated time to reach popular
destinations. According to the NYSDOT, the system encrypts information from individ-
ual tags, deletes the information as soon as the vehicle passes the last reader, and never
makes information about individual cars available to the department [83].
However, states do maintain records of when cars pass through toll booths, and
most of the states in the E-ZPass network provide information in response to court
orders in criminal and civil cases. A well-known example is the case of Melanie McGuire,
a New Jersey nurse suspected of murdering her husband and throwing his dismembered
corpse into Chesapeake Bay. To help prove their case against McGuire, prosecutors used
E-ZPass records to reconstruct her movements. E-ZPass records are also playing a role
in divorce cases by providing evidence of infidelity. Pennsylvania divorce lawyer Lynne
Gold-Bikin explained how E-ZPass helped her show that a client’s husband had been
unfaithful: “He claimed he was in a business meeting in Pennsylvania. And I had records
to show he went to New Jersey that night” [84].
6.11 Invasion
Early in Chapter 5 we described privacy as a “zone of inaccessibility.” People have infor-
mation privacy to the extent that they have some control over who has access to their
personal information. In quite a few modern situations, people may have very little con-
trol; they must cede access to their personal information if they wish to use the service
provided. If the loss of control is accompanied by a loss of tranquility or interferes with
6.11 Invasion 303
someone’s freedom of decision making, that is a privacy invasion, according to Solove.
We begin this section by giving two examples of government actions to prevent invasion
and then move on to survey two government actions that can be seen as invasive.
6.11.1 Telemarketing
After being sworn in as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2001,
Timothy Muris looked for an action that the FTC could take to protect the privacy of
Americans. It did not take long for the FTC to focus on telemarketing. A large segment
of the American population views dinnertime phone calls from telemarketers as an an-
noying invasion of privacy. In fact, Harris Interactive concluded that telemarketing is
the reason why the number of Americans who feel it is “extremely important” not to be
disturbed at home rose from 49 percent in 1994 to 62 percent in 2003 [85]. Respond-
ing to this desire for greater privacy, the FTC created the National Do Not Call Registry
(www.donotcall.gov), a free service that allows people who do not wish to receive tele-
marketing calls to register their phone numbers. The public reacted enthusiastically to
the availability of the Do Not Call Registry by registering more than 50 million phone
numbers before it even took effect in October 2003 [86, 87].
The Do Not Call Registry has not eliminated 100 percent of unwanted solicitations.
The regulations exempt political organizations, charities, and organizations conducting
telephone surveys. Even if your phone number has been registered, you may still receive
phone calls from companies with which you have done business in the past eighteen
months. Still, the registry is expected to keep most telemarketers from calling people
who do not wish to be solicited. The creation of the registry is a good example of how
privacy is seen as a prudential right: the benefit of shielding people from telemarketers
is judged to be greater than the harm caused by putting limits on telephone advertising.
6.11.2 Loud Television Commercials
Since the 1960s, television watchers have complained to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) about loud commercials. The Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation Act (CALM Act), signed into law by President Obama in December 2010, re-
quired the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that television commercials
are played at the same volume as the programs they are interrupting. The sponsor of the
bill, Representative Anna Eshoo of California, said, “Consumers have been asking for a
solution to this problem for decades, and today they finally have it. . . . It’s a simple fix
to a huge nuisance” [88].
6.11.3 Requiring Identification for Pseudoephedrine Purchases
In an effort to curb the illegal production of methamphetamine (“meth”), federal
and state governments have passed laws limiting access to products containing pseu-
doephedrine, which is used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act limits the quantity of pseudoephedrine that an in-
dividual can purchase in a month. Whether the laws have been effective is a matter of
debate. In most states, original Sudafed is still sold behind the counter to adults, but
www.donotcall.gov
304 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
they must show an identification card and fill out a sales log with their name, address,
and signature. Two states, Oregon and Mississippi, require a prescription to acquire a
product containing pseudoephedrine.
6.11.4 Advanced Imaging Technology Scanners
In an effort to provide enhanced passenger security at airports, the Transportation
Security Administration began deploying advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners
in 2007. Some AIT scanners use backscatter X-rays to produce a detailed image of the
passenger’s body, and other scanners use millimeter waves. The TSA began testing AIT
systems at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport in 2007 [89]. When the first
AIT system was deployed, passengers who failed the primary security screening could
choose between the X-ray scan and a traditional pat-down search. In June 2011, the
Transportation Security Administration announced that it had already deployed 500
AIT units and would deploy an additional 500 units, enabling it to use this technology to
screen 60 percent of all airline passengers in the United States [90]. Even as it was busily
deploying systems, the TSA was battling critics.
Some people were offended at the images produced by AIT scanners, which reveal
“all anatomical features” (Figure 6.7) [91]. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties
Figure 6.7 When the first advanced imaging technology scanners were deployed in
American airports, they revealed anatomical features in great detail. (© Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty
Images/Newscom)
Summary 305
Union called the AIT scan a “virtual strip-search” [92]. In July 2010, the Electronic
Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of AIT systems,
pending further review. EPIC called the program “unlawful, invasive, and ineffective,”
arguing that it violated the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution [93].
In February 2011, the Transportation Security Administration announced that it
was about to begin testing new software on its advanced imaging technology machines
that would eliminate passenger-specific images. TSA Administrator John Pistole said
that the new system “auto-detects potential threat items and indicates their location on
a generic outline of a person” [94]. The tests were successful, and in January 2013 the
TSA announced that all body scanners producing passenger-specific images would be
removed from airport checkpoints by June 2013 [95].
Summary
It’s only natural that people want government to leave them alone, but they also expect
government to keep them safe and secure through effective policing and a strong na-
tional defense. Frequently, the constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights come into
conflict with the desires of law enforcement agencies to gather information that can help
them apprehend criminals. Through legislation, administrative policies, and court deci-
sions, the three branches of American government have been engaged in the attempt to
find the right balance between competing concerns.
In this chapter we looked at the role that federal, state, and local governments have
played in protecting and eroding the information privacy of individual citizens. We orga-
nized our presentation using the taxonomy of privacy proposed by Daniel Solove, which
divides the field into four categories: information collection, information processing,
information dissemination, and invasion. We reviewed legislation and administrative
policies that protect the information privacy of individuals by restricting how orga-
nizations can collect, process, and disseminate information as well as limit the extent
to which they can intrude into people’s daily lives. We also looked at ways in which
governments have promoted public safety and security by collecting, processing, and
disseminating personal information and intruding into people’s lives.
We surveyed many governmental activities related to information collection. The
federal government maintains extensive databases containing a vast amount of informa-
tion about individual Americans, and from time to time information in these databases
has been misused. The government also collects information through overt and covert
surveillance.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concerns about individual privacy
took a backseat to concerns about national security, and signficant changes occurred
in the government’s activities related to information collection, information process-
ing, and invasion. The USA PATRIOT Act amended many laws and enhanced the abil-
ity of law enforcement agencies to gather information about suspected terrorists and
criminals. The National Security Agency acquired records of domestic phone calls from
telecommunications companies and performed data mining in an attempt to find calling
306 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
patterns indicating the presence of terrorist networks. The Transportation Security Ad-
ministration installed highly intrusive advanced imaging technology scanners at airport
security checkpoints.
The Social Security number is an important identifier in the United States, but it
has many flaws. The US Congress passed the REAL ID Act that created a new standard
for driver’s licenses. Once the law is in effect, the new driver’s license would probably
become the most trusted form of identification in the United States, a de facto national
identification card. States have been slow to comply with the federal law, and the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security is providing temporary deferments to the states that have
not yet issued driver’s licenses that meet the new standard.
Review Questions
1. What are the four categories in Daniel Solove’s taxonomy of privacy? Come up with your
own examples of activities conducted by government agencies falling into each of these
categories.
2. How does the Employee Polygraph Protection Act help job applicants and company em-
ployees maintain their privacy? What is the most significant loophole in the Employee
Polygraph Protection Act?
3. What is the purpose of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act?
4. What are the two principal purposes of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act?
5. Give two examples of the Census Bureau illegally revealing census data to other federal
agencies.
6. Name two notable successes claimed by the National Crime Information Center.
7. What is the purpose of the OneDOJ database? What are its weaknesses, according to the
critics of this database?
8. Provide an example of overt surveillance by a government agency in the United States.
9. Provide two examples of covert surveillance by the US government.
10. What right is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution?
11. Why was the US Supreme Court decision in Nardone v. United States so important?
12. What was the key ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Weiss v. United States?
13. How did the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. United States change
the concept of privacy?
14. How did Operation Shamrock begin? What abuses arose from the continuation of Op-
eration Shamrock?
15. What was the purpose of the Carnivore system?
16. Why did the National Security Agency begin its secret wiretapping program?
17. Why did the TALON database spark controversy?
18. What is a pen register?
Review Questions 307
19. What is a trap-and-trace device?
20. What is a roving wiretap?
21. What are the implications of the Stored Communications Act for all those who let an
Internet service provider handle their email?
22. What are the three most controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act?
23. Why has the expanded use of National Security Letters raised privacy concerns?
24. Briefly summarize in your own words the five tenets of the Code of Fair Information
Practices.
25. Robert Bellair has said, “The Privacy Act, it turns out, is no protection at all. You can
drive a truck through the Privacy Act” [66, p. 212]. Explain why Bellair and other privacy
advocates feel the Privacy Act of 1974 is a weak piece of legislation.
26. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires information that may negatively affect an indi-
vidual’s credit rating to be removed after seven years. What are two exceptions to this
guideline?
27. How does the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act help consumers verify the
accuracy of their credit reports?
28. Summarize the major provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act.
29. Give two examples of data-mining programs run by governments.
30. What are the problems with using the Social Security number as an identification num-
ber?
31. Give two arguments in favor of a national identification card for the United States. Give
two arguments against creating a national identification card.
32. What are the rights provided by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act?
33. How does the Video Privacy Protection Act enhance privacy?
34. Describe the privacy protections resulting from the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
35. What is the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act?
36. Name two important exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act that allow the
government to withhold information.
37. Give an example of how information gathered by the E-ZPass system has been used for
a purpose other than collecting tolls.
38. How did the Federal Trade Commission reduce unwanted telemarketing?
39. What is the purpose of the CALM Act?
40. Why have federal and state governments passed laws limiting access to cold products
containing pseudoephedrine?
41. Why have privacy groups objected to the installation of advanced imaging technology
scanners at airport security checkpoints? How has the Transportation Security Admin-
istration responded to these objections?
308 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
Discussion Questions
42. Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma have passed laws that require lifetime moni-
toring of some convicted sex offenders after they have been released from prison. The
offenders must wear electronic ankle bracelets and stay close to small GPS transmitters,
which can be carried on a belt or in a purse. Computers monitor the GPS signals and
alert law enforcement officials if the offenders venture too close to a school or other
off-limits area. Police interested in the whereabouts of a monitored person can see his
location, traveling direction, and speed plotted on a map [96].
Do these laws represent an unacceptable weakening of personal privacy, or are they
sensible public safety measures? Should they be repealed? Should people convicted of
other crimes also be monitored for life? Would there be less crime if everyone in society
were monitored?
43. Think about what you do when you get up in the morning. How would you act differ-
ently if you knew you were being watched? Would you feel uncomfortable? Do you think
you would get used to being watched?
44. Discuss the following responses to the revelation that telecommunications companies
provided domestic phone call records to the National Security Agency [97].
President George Bush: “Al-Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans.”
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont: “Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans
are involved with al-Qaeda?”
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona: “We are in a war, and we have got to collect intelligence
on the enemy.”
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa: “Why are the telephone companies not protecting
their customers? They have a social responsibility to people who do business with them
to protect our privacy as long as there isn’t some suspicion that we’re a terrorist or a
criminal or something.”
45. When asked about Google releasing personal information to law enforcement agencies,
Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt told CNBC: “If you have something that you don’t want
anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place” [50]. Discuss Mr.
Schmidt’s perspective.
46. Was the US government’s $2 million settlement with Brandon Mayfield reasonable and
just?
47. In order to combat the counterfeiting of currency, the US Secret Service convinced
several color laser printer manufacturers to add a secret code to every printed page. The
code is invisible to the human eye but can be seen under a microscope. When decrypted,
it reveals the serial number of the printer and the time and date the page was printed
[98].
By agreeing to secretly insert the codes, did the printer manufacturers violate the
privacy rights of their customers?
48. What special responsibilities do computer professionals have with respect to under-
standing and protecting the privacy rights of their fellow citizens?
References 309
In-Class Exercises
49. The Code of Fair Information Practices applies only to government databases. Divide
the class into two groups to debate the advantages and disadvantages of extending the
Code of Fair Information Practices to private databases managed by corporations.
50. A database containing the DNA information of every citizen of a country could be a
valuable resource to medical researchers. It could also help police solve crimes. Divide
the class into two groups (pro and con) to debate the following proposition: It would be
in the best interests of society if the government constructed a DNA database of every
resident and made the database available to medical researchers and police agencies.
51. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to debate the proposition that every
citizen of the United States ought to carry a national identification card.
52. Debate the following proposition: By creating the Threat and Local Observation Notices
(TALON) database, which enabled citizens to report on each other’s activities, the US
government effectively reduced freedom of speech.
Further Reading and Viewing
James Bamford. “The Black Box.” Wired, April 2012.
Dan Boylan. “Is the Notion of Privacy Outdated?” Insights on PBS Hawaii, July 11, 2013.
56:49. video.pbs.org.
Patrick A. Hafner. “Naked Citizens.” Journeyman Pictures, May 2013. 32:41. topdocumentary
films.com/naked-citizens.
George Orwell. 1984. Knopf, New York, NY, 1992.
Daniel J. Solove. “Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ ” Chronicle of
Higher Education, May 15, 2011.
Hari Sreenivasan. “Rise of Domestic Drones Draws Questions about Privacy.” PBS News-
Hour, April 18, 2013. 7:30. video.pbs.org.
Margaret Warner. “Surveillance Court Can’t Stop NSA from Violating Privacy.” PBS News-
Hour, August 16, 2013. 6:33. video.pbs.org.
References
[1] Aaron Nicodemus. “Agents’ Visit Chills UMass Dartmouth Senior.” Standard-Times
(MA), December 20, 2005.
[2] Jamie Prime. “Privacy vs. Openness.” Quill 82(8), October 1994.
[3] Marisol Bello. “Questions Arise on Monitoring of Sex Offenders.” USA Today, Sep-
tember 1, 2009. www.usatoday.com.
[4] “Majority of Americans Support Increased Surveillance, Poll Shows.” Wall Street Jour-
nal, August 17, 2006.
[5] Daniel J. Solove. Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
2008.
www.usatoday.com
310 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
[6] “GINA: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Information for Re-
searchers and Health Care Professionals.” Department of Health and Human Services,
USA, April 6, 2009. www.genome.gov.
[7] Stephanie L. Hitt. “NCIC 2000.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 69(7), July 2000.
[8] Dan Eggen. “Justice Dept. Database Stirs Privacy Fears.” Washington Post , December
26, 2006.
[9] John T. Eberth. “Nation’s First Surveillance Cameras Were Installed in Olean.” Olean
(NY) Times Herald, October 5, 2008. www.oleantimesherald.com.
[10] James Vlahos. “Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You.”
Popular Mechanics, October 1, 2009.
[11] Chris Dolmetsch. “Cameras to Catch Terrorists Triple in New York with Bomb Plots.”
Bloomberg, November 13, 2010. www.bloomberg.com.
[12] Jamie Roth. “Bloomberg in London to Study Security System.” WABC Local News,
May 11, 2010. abclocal.go.com/wabc/.
[13] Jennifer Lee. “Study Questions Whether Cameras Cut Crime.” New York Times, March
3, 2009.
[14] M. Angela Sasse. “Privacy and Security: Not Seeing the Crime for the Cameras?”
Communications of the ACM , pp. 22–25, February 2010.
[15] Federal Aviation Administration. “Fact Sheet—Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).”
Press release, February 19, 2013. www.faa.gov.
[16] Maggie Clark. “States Seek Legal Limits on Domestic Drones.” Stateline, February 22,
2013. www.pewstates.org.
[17] Monmouth University. “US Supports Some Domestic Drone Use.” Press release, June
12, 2012.
[18] Maggie Clark. “Boston Bombings Show Future Use for Police Drones.” Stateline, May
2, 2013. www.pewstates.org.
[19] Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau. Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and
Encryption. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
[20] Priscilla M. Regan. Legislating Privacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC, 1995.
[21] Justice Brandeis, dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States. Olmstead v. United
States, 277 US 438 (1928).
[22] Supreme Court of the United States. Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 (1967).
[23] James Bamford. The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America’s Most Secret Agency. Penguin
Books, New York, NY, 1983.
[24] Heinz Tschabitscher. “How Carnivore Email Surveillance Worked.” About.com, Ac-
cessed October 15, 2013. email.about.com.
[25] Holly E. Ventura, J. Mitchell Miller, and Mathieu Deflem. “Governmentality and
the War on Terror: FBI Project Carnivore and the Diffusion of Disciplinary Power.”
Critical Criminology 13(1): 55–70, January 2005.
[26] US District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. “In the Matter
of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the
Installation of a Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device.” Criminal No. 99-2713M,
February 4, 2000.
[27] Kevin Poulsen. “FBI Retires Its Carnivore.” SecurityFocus, January 14, 2005. www
.securityfocus.com.
www.genome.gov
www.oleantimesherald.com
www.bloomberg.com
www.faa.gov
www.pewstates.org
www.pewstates.org
www.securityfocus.com
www.securityfocus.com
References 311
[28] James Risen and Eric Lichtblau. “Bush Lets US Spy on Callers without Courts.” New
York Times, December 16, 2005.
[29] Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella, and the NBC Investigative Unit. “Is the
Pentagon Spying on Americans?” MSNBC.com, December 14, 2005.
[30] Samantha Henig. “Pentagon Surveillance of Student Groups Extended to Scrutinizing
E-Mail.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21, 2006.
[31] “No Real Threat: The Pentagon’s Secret Database on Peaceful Protest.” American Civil
Liberties Union, January 17, 2007. www.aclu.org.
[32] Siobhan Gorman. “Intelligence Policies Shift: Pentagon Spy Chief Rolling Back Some
of Rumsfeld’s Strategies.” Baltimore Sun, May 26, 2007.
[33] Nate Anderson. “US to Shutter DoD TALON Database as It Works on Replacement.”
Ars Technica, August 21, 2007. www.arstechnica.com.
[34] Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill. “NSA Prism Program Taps In to User Data of
Apple, Google and Others.” Guardian, June 6, 2013.
[35] Orin S. Kerr. “The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine.” Michigan Law Review, Volume
107, pp. 561–601, February 2009.
[36] David Kravets. “Yahoo, Feds Battle over E-Mail Privacy.” Threat Level: Privacy, Crime
and Security Online, Wired, April 14, 2010. www.wired.com.
[37] Ryan Singel. “Google, Microsoft Push Feds to Fix Privacy Laws.” Threat Level: Privacy,
Crime and Security Online, Wired, March 30, 2010. www.wired.com.
[38] Nancy Gohring. “FCC Inflates CALEA.” Telephony 237(10), September 6, 1999.
[39] Charlotte Twight. “Conning Congress.” Independent Review 6(2), Fall 2001.
[40] Kirk Laughlin. “A Wounded CALEA Is Shuttled Back to the FCC.” America’s Network
104(15), October 1, 2000.
[41] “FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers to Accommodate Wiretaps.”
Federal Communications Commission, August 5, 2005. www.fcc.gov.
[42] Charlie Savage. “As Online Communications Stymie Wiretaps, Lawmakers Debate
Solutions.” New York Times, February 17, 2011.
[43] “USA Patriot Act: Major Provisions of the 2001 Antiterrorism Law.” Congressional
Digest 82(4), April 2003.
[44] Pete Yost. “FBI Access to E-mail, Web Data Raises Privacy Fear.” Associated Press, July
30, 2010. seattletimes.nwsource.com.
[45] American Civil Liberties Union. “With Help of ACLU, Connecticut Library Group
Successfully Keeps Patron Records Private.” Press release, June 26, 2006. www.aclu.org.
[46] “PATRIOT Act Fears Are Stifling Free Speech, ACLU Says in Challenge to Law.” Amer-
ican Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, November 11, 2003. www.aclu.org.
[47] American Library Association. “Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Related
Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users.” 2003 ALA Midwinter Meeting,
2002–2003 CD #20.1, January 29, 2003. www.ala.org.
[48] Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Web site). Accessed September 2, 2011. www.bordc
.org.
[49] Bob Garfield. “Subpoenas and Online Service Providers.” On the Media, January 21,
2011. www.onthemedia.org.
[50] Cade Metz. “Google Chief: Only Miscreants Worry about Net Privacy.” Register, De-
cember 7, 2009. www.theregister.co.uk.
www.aclu.org
www.arstechnica.com
www.wired.com
www.wired.com
www.fcc.gov
www.aclu.org
www.ala.org
www.bordc.org
www.bordc.org
www.onthemedia.org
www.theregister.co.uk
www.aclu.org
312 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
[51] Tom Ridge. “Using the PATRIOT Act to Fight Terrorism.” Congressional Digest , pp.
266–268, November 2004.
[52] Ben Jacklet and Todd Murphy. “Now Free, Attorney Brandon Mayfield Turns Furi-
ous.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 23(6), July/August 2004.
[53] Dan Eggen. “Flawed FBI Probe of Bombing Used a Search Warrant.” Washington Post ,
April 7, 2005.
[54] Eric Lichtblau. “U.S. Will Pay $2 Million to Lawyer Wrongly Jailed.” New York Times,
November 30, 2006. www.localnewsdaily.com.
[55] Andrew Murr, Michael Isikoff, Eric Pape, and Mike Elkin. “The Wrong Man.” News-
week 143(23), June 7, 2004.
[56] Jim Abrams. “Patriot Act Extension Signed by Obama.” Associated Press, May 27, 2011.
www.huffingtonpost.com.
[57] Ron Wyden. “Wyden Warns of Potential Public Backlash from Allowing Secret Law.”
YouTube(video), uploaded May 27, 2011. youtube.com/watch?v=vMAX_Frj8xM.
[58] Glenn Greenwald. “NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers
Daily.” Guardian, June 5, 2013.
[59] “White House Defends NSA Order to Verizon to Reveal Call Data.” UPI , June 6, 2013.
www.upi.com.
[60] Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt. “Verizon Case Offers Glimpse of Vast N.S.A.
Surveillance.” New York Times, June 6, 2013.
[61] Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman. “Anger Swells after NSA Phone Records Court
Order Revelations.” Guardian, June 6, 2013.
[62] Carl Kaysen. “Data Banks and Dossiers.” Public Interest , pp. 52–60, Spring 1967.
[63] G. Russell Pipe. “Privacy: Establishing Restrictions on Government Inquiry.” Ameri-
can University Law Review, Vol. 18, pp. 516–551, 1969.
[64] US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. “Code of Fair Information Prac-
tices.” Secretary’s Advisory Committee of Automated Personal Data Systems, Records,
Computers, and the Rights of Citizens, 1973.
[65] Robert Gellman. “Fair Information Practices: A Basic History.” July 15, 2011.
bobgellman.com.
[66] William Petrocelli. Low Profile: How to Avoid the Privacy Invaders. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1981.
[67] “Fact Sheet 24: Protecting Financial Privacy.” Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, July 14,
2005. www.privacyrights.org.
[68] Richard Peŕez-Peña. “An Early Warning System for Diseases in New York.” NY-
Times.com, April 4, 2003.
[69] Leslie Cauley. “NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls.” USA Today,
May 11, 2006.
[70] Wayne Rash. “Federal Court Finds NSA Wiretaps Unconstitutional.” eWeek.com, Au-
gust 18, 2006. www.eweek.com.
[71] Zach Friend. “Predictive Policing: Using Technology to Reduce Crime.” FBI Law En-
forcement Bulletin, April 2013.
[72] “A Brief History of Social Security.” Social Security Administration, USA, August
2000.
[73] “Social Security Cards Issued by Woolworth.” Social Security Administration, USA,
Accessed October 15, 2013. www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html.
www.localnewsdaily.com
www.huf.ngtonpost.com
www.upi.com
www.eweek.com
www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html
www.privacyrights.org
References 313
[74] “Extent of Social Security Number Discrepancies.” Office of Inspector General, De-
partment of Health and Human Services, USA, OAI-06-89-01120, January 1990.
[75] Peter G. Neumann and Lauren Weinstein. “Risks of National Identity Cards.” Com-
munications of the ACM , p. 176, December 2001.
[76] Richard Turner. Letter to the editor. Times (London), September 7, 2001.
[77] Declan McCullagh. “FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You.” New York Times, May 6,
2005.
[78] “REAL ID Act of 2005 Driver’s License Title Summary.” Real Nightmare.org (Web
site). www.realnightmare.org/images/File/NCSL_Summary_of_Real_ID . Access-
ed October 15, 2013.
[79] Dennis Bailey. The Open Society Paradox: Why the 21st Century Calls for More Open-
ness—Not Less. Potomac Books. Washington, DC, 2004, p. 42.
[80] Joseph Menn. “Federal ID Act May Be Flawed.” Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2005.
[81] “Countdown to REAL ID.” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 18, 2013.
www.ncsl.org.
[82] “Protecting the Privacy of Patients’ Health Information.” Department of Health and
Human Services, USA, April 14, 2003. www.hhs.gov/news.
[83] New York State Department of Transportation. “NYSDOT Announces Travel Time
Signs in Staten Island.” Press release, July 10, 2007. www.nysdot.gov.
[84] Chris Newmarker. “E-ZPass Records Out Cheaters in Divorce Court.” Associated Press,
August 10, 2007. www.msnbc.com.
[85] Humphrey Taylor. “Most People Are ‘Privacy Pragmatists’ Who, While Concerned
about Privacy, Will Sometimes Trade It Off for Other Benefits.” HarrisInteractive,
Harris Poll #17, March 19, 2003.
[86] James Toedtman. “Court Unblocks Do Not Call Registry in Latest Ruling.” Sun-
Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), October 8, 2003.
[87] Heather Fleming Phillips. “Consumers Can Thank Do-Not-Underestimate FTC
Chairman for Do-Not-Call Peace.” San Jose (CA) Mercury News, January 2, 2004.
[88] Chris Foresman. “CALM Act Passed, Will Quiet Loud TV Commercials within a Year.”
Ars Technica, December 2, 2010. www.arstechnica.com.
[89] Ginger D. Richardson. “Revealing X-Ray Machine Set to Scan Sky Harbor Flyers.”
Arizona Republic, February 23, 2007. www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic.
[90] Statement of John S. Pistole, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration,
before the US House of Representatives. Committee on Homeland Security, Subcom-
mittee on Transportation Security, June 2, 2011. www.tsa.gov.
[91] Melissa Cheung. “New Airport X-Ray Too Revealing?” CBS News, February 11, 2009.
www.cbsnews.com.
[92] Paul Giblin and Eric Lipton. “New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags.” New
York Times, February 24, 2007.
[93] “Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners (‘Backscatter’ X-Ray and Mil-
limeter Wave Screening).” Electronic Privacy Information Center. (Web site). Accessed
July 9, 2011. epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/.
[94] Transportation Security Administration. “TSA Begins Testing New Advanced Imaging
Technology Software.” Press release, February 1, 2011.
[95] Mike M. Ahlers. “TSA Removing ‘Virtual Strip Search’ Body Scanners.” CNN, January
18, 2013. www.cnn.com.
www.realnightmare.org/images/File/NCSL_Summary_of_Real_ID
www.ncsl.org
www.hhs.gov/news
www.nysdot.gov
www.msnbc.com
www.arstechnica.com
www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic
www.tsa.gov
www.cbsnews.com
www.cnn.com
314 Chapter 6 Privacy and the Government
[96] David A. Lieb. “States Move on Sex Offender GPS Tracking.” Associated Press, July 30,
2005.
[97] Susan Page. “NSA Secret Database Report Triggers Fierce Debate in Washington.”
USA Today, May 11, 2006.
[98] John P. Mello Jr. “Codes Make Printers Stool Pigeons.” E-Commerce Times, October
18, 2005. www.ecommercetimes.com.
www.ecommercetimes.com
A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H
Jerry Berman
Jerry Berman is the founder and chairman of the board of directors for
the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). CDT is a Washington,
DC–based Internet public policy organization founded in December
1994. CDT plays a leading role in free speech, privacy, Internet
governance, and architecture issues affecting democracy and civil
liberties on the global Internet. Mr. Berman has written widely on
Internet and civil liberties issues and often appears in print and
television media. He has testified before the US Congress on Internet
policy and civil liberties issues.
Prior to founding the Center for Democracy and Technology, Mr.
Berman was director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From 1978 to 1988, Mr. Berman was
chief legislative counsel at the ACLU and founder and director of ACLU Projects on Privacy and
Information Technology. Mr. Berman received his BA, MA, and LLB from the University of California,
Berkeley.
How did you get involved in Internet law?
When I worked on civil liberties and privacy at the ACLU in the early 1980s, the prevailing view was
computer databases and the rise of the computer state posed a major threat to privacy. This is true.
But at the same time there was the beginning of the use of the computer as a communications device,
and the start of data networks for communications purposes—the beginnings of the Internet. While
recognizing the threat to privacy, I saw that the Internet had the potential to facilitate and broaden
First Amendment speech.
In many ways my colleagues and I have been involved in trying to frame the law and to define privacy,
free speech, and how the Internet is governed. We’re trying to sort out the “constitution” for this new
social space. By analogy, the Internet business community wants to make sure there’s a “commerce
clause” to encourage robust commercial transactions over the Internet. We agree with that but also see
the need for a “bill of rights” to protect speech, privacy, and other democratic values. We have had
some successes, but the work is very much in progress.
The Internet is a more powerful communication medium than newspapers or television,
because it allows everyone with an Internet connection to express their views. How can
the Internet be anything but democratic?
Like any other technology, the Internet can be regulated. Other countries are exercising consider-
able control over what ISPs can connect to and what can reside on a server. Even a well-intentioned
Congress attempting to protect intellectual property to reduce theft of music and movies could man-
date technological changes to computers that make it difficult to use the computer in an open, inter-
connected way. So one way the Internet can be less than democratic is from bad laws and bad policy.
Another threat is from bad actors provoking bad law. Hackers, people stealing music, using spyware,
and engaging in online fraud can provoke policy responses that may have the unintended consequence
of undermining the openness of the Internet. We’re seeing this now in legitimate efforts to combat
spam, spyware, and piracy. We need appropriate laws that combat these harms without harming the
openness of the Net. Finding the right solutions is what CDT is about.
One of the great challenges is that, given the freedom to connect and communicate that everyone has
on the Internet, there is a corollary concept of responsibility. Unless there are shared ethics that respect
property, privacy, pluralism, diversity, and the rule of law, the Internet will never realize its potential.
Responding to public pressure, the US Congress passed the Communications Decency
Act to restrict access of children to sexually explicit materials on the Web. Why did you
organize a legal challenge to the CDA?
In enacting the CDA over our objections, Congress attempted to treat the Internet the same way as
other broadcast mass media (TV, radio). The first filed challenge to the CDA, ACLU v. Reno, was
designed to persuade the courts that if you restrict speech for children, you also necessarily restrict
adults’ free speech rights, because the definition of indecency covers constitutionally protected speech
for adults. If ISPs had to block all indecent content for children, that content would not reach adults
who are entitled to it, because adults and children are all on the same Internet network.
We filed a second challenge to the CDA, and eventually the ACLU suit and the CDT suit were joined
and argued together. CDT brought together a broad coalition of Internet technology companies, news
organizations, and librarians to educate the courts that the Internet was architecturally different from
broadcast media. Traditional media is a one-to-many communication and the Internet is a many-
to-many communication, much like print. It was also critical to explain that the Internet is a global
medium: it isn’t effective to censor speech in the United States if it’s also available on the Internet from
outside the United States. It is impossible for ISPs to prevent content flowing from sources they do not
control, and any ISP censorship would violate constitutional rights. The architecture of the Internet
leads to different analysis and different policy solutions to both protect free speech and protect children
from inappropriate content. The lawyers for our coalition argued the case in the Supreme Court on
behalf of all the plaintiffs and made the case for user control and user empowerment. The only effective
way to deal with unwanted content is for parents and other users (rather than the government) to
voluntarily employ available filtering tools and parental controls offered by ISPs and other vendors.
In issues of constitutionally protected speech, the courts seek to determine if Congress has chosen the
least restrictive means for achieving their public purpose. We were able to show that blocking content
at the provider end is neither effective nor the least restrictive means for protecting children from
inappropriate content. Voluntary filtering is a less restrictive means because it allows users to decide
what comes into their homes and, given the global nature of the Internet, gives them the most effective
means to do that.
Should an ordinary American citizen’s Web site enjoy the same constitutional protections
as the New York Times?
On the Internet everyone can be publishers. And if they’re holding themselves out as publishers,
they have the same credentials as the New York Times, since no one’s handing out credentials on the
Internet. The Supreme Court heard the Communications Decency Act (CDA) challenge and ruled that
the Internet communicator enjoys the maximum protection afforded under the First Amendment.
Like the print media, the Internet is not subject to equal time, to the fairness doctrine, or various
spectrum allocations. The whole technology of the Internet and the ability of anyone to be a publisher
suggests the Internet publisher should, if anything, enjoy greater protection than the New York Times.
For example, if a newspaper libels someone with false charges, it may require a lawsuit to restore a
reputation. On the Internet anyone can answer back in the blogosphere and reputations are often
quickly restored. Thus courts may narrow the scope of libel suits when the Internet is concerned in
favor of more robust debate and “give-and-take” on the Internet.
Why should a person who has committed no crime be concerned about electronic infor-
mation gathering and data mining by government agencies?
These databases contain vast amounts of information on all of us, including very personal infor-
mation—our medical histories, financial transactions, what we purchase, and what we read. Under
our concept of privacy, people who have done nothing wrong should have every expectation that the
government is not viewing, collecting, or analyzing information about them. So asking “Why should I
worry if I have nothing to hide?” is the wrong formulation. The question should be “Since I have done
nothing wrong, why should the government be investigating me?”
The government can look at records that pertain to a suspected terrorist. Yet with data mining, the
government may have no articulable suspicion pointing at anyone, but simply mines personal data
from airlines, banks, and commercial entities to look at patterns of behavior that might indicate
someone may be a terrorist, is associated with a terrorist, knows a terrorist, or is engaged in a behavior
that may fit a pattern that the government thinks applies to terrorists. These types of data mining and
data analysis can result in significant false positives—innocent people get caught up in investigations—
and this can have consequences. First, just being investigated can be an intrusion into privacy. Second,
consequences flow from fitting a pattern—you may be denied the right to get on a plane or be passed
over for employment because you lived in an apartment building at the same time as a tenant with the
same name as a terrorist’s.
Privacy advocates argue that the government needs to have an articulable reason to collect or analyze
personal information: the government should need a court order from a judge and should show why
they believe a data-mining project is likely to result in identifying suspected or potential terrorists. We
do need to realize the government has almost carte blanche to conduct these investigations because
they have significant authority under current law to engage in data-mining exercises. There are very few
privacy protections under the Constitution or statutes pertaining to these vast databases of personal
information. We need stronger privacy laws to deal with data mining.
blank25 25 5/4/10 9:31:04 AM
This page intentionally left blank
C H A P T E R
7 Computer and
Network Security
A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are for.
—–John Shedd
7.1 Introduction
The Conficker worm has infected millions of Windows computers. Is your PC
one of them? You can click on a link from the home page of the Conficker Working
Group (www.confickerworkinggroup.org) to find out.
Do you ever go to a coffee shop and use its open wireless network to surf the Web?
Did you know freely available software gives any nearby computer user the ability to
break into the accounts of people accessing Web sites through password-free wireless
networks?
In the movie Live Free or Die Hard, a terrorist organization hacks into a variety
of computer and communication systems to seize control of traffic lights, natural gas
pipelines, and electrical power grids. Are such episodes purely the stuff of Hollywood
fiction, or could they really happen?
Millions of people use computers and the Internet to send and receive email, ac-
cess bank accounts, purchase goods and services, and keep track of personal informa-
tion, making the security of these systems an important issue. Malicious software can
enter computers in a variety of ways. Once active, these programs can steal personal
information, destroy files, disrupt industrial processes, and launch attacks on financial
www.con.ckerworkinggroup.org
320 Chapter 7 Computer and Network Security
systems, supporting criminal enterprises and politically motivated attacks on corpora-
tions and governments around the world.
This chapter focuses on threats to computer and network security. We begin our
survey with examples of individuals using cunning or skill to gain unauthorized access
into computer systems.
7.2 Hacking
Today people associate the word “hacking” with computers, but it didn’t start out that
way.
7.2.1 Hackers, Past and Present
In its original meaning, a hacker was an explorer, a risk taker, someone who was try-
ing to make a system do something it had never done before. Hackers in this sense of
the word abounded at MIT’s Tech Model Railroad Club in the 1950s and 1960s. The
club constructed and continuously improved an enormous HO-scale model train layout.
Members of the Signals and Power Subcommittee built an elaborate electronic switch-
ing system to control the movement of the trains. Wearing chino pants, short-sleeved
shirts, and pocket protectors, the most dedicated members would drink vast quantities
of Coca-Cola and stay up all night to improve the system. To them, a “hack” was a newly
constructed piece of equipment that not only served a useful purpose but also demon-
strated its creator’s technical virtuosity. Calling someone a hacker was a sign of respect;
hackers wore the label with pride.
In 1959, after taking a newly created course in computer programming, some of the
hackers shifted their attention from model trains to electronic computers [1]. The term
“hacker” came to mean a “person who delights in having an intimate understanding of
the internal workings of a system, computers and networks in particular” [2].
In the 1983 movie WarGames, a teenager breaks into a military computer and nearly
causes a nuclear Armageddon. After seeing the movie, a lot of teenagers were excited at
the thought that they could prowl cyberspace with a home computer and a modem.
A few of them became highly proficient at breaking into government and corporate
computer networks. These actions helped change the everyday meaning of the word
“hacker.”
Today hackers are people who gain unauthorized access to computers and computer
networks. An example of this use of the word is a story in Computerworld describing how
hackers broke into the Web site of USA Today on July 11, 2002, and inserted fabricated
news stories [3].
Typically, you need a login name and password to access a computer system. Some-
times a hacker can guess a valid login name/password combination, particularly when
system administrators allow users to choose short passwords or passwords that appear
in a dictionary.
Three other low-tech techniques for obtaining login names and passwords are
eavesdropping, dumpster diving, and social engineering. Eavesdropping, such as simply
7.2 Hacking 321
looking over the shoulder of a legitimate computer user to learn his login name and
password, is a common way that hackers gain access to computers. Dumpster diving
means looking through garbage for interesting bits of information. Companies typically
do not put a fence around their dumpsters. In midnight rummaging sessions, hackers
have found user manuals, phone numbers, login names, and passwords. Social engi-
neering refers to the manipulation of a person inside the organization to gain access
to confidential information. Social engineering is easier in large organizations where
people do not know each other very well. For example, a hacker may identify a system
administrator and call that person, pretending to be the supervisor of his supervisor
and demanding to know why he can’t access a particular machine. In this situation, a
cowed system administrator, eager to please his boss’s boss, may be talked into revealing
or resetting a password [4].
You probably have many online accounts. Your choice of passwords for these ac-
counts is an important determinant of how safe your accounts are from hackers (see
sidebar).
Sidebar: Responsible computer users take passwords seriously
Here is a list of password dos and don’ts from security experts [5, 6].
. Do not use short passwords. Modern computers can quickly crack short passwords. As
a general rule, the longer a password is, the less likely it is to be guessed.
. Do not use a word from the dictionary. Again, such a password is too easy to crack.
. Do not rely on substituting numbers for letters (e.g., replacing “E” with “3”). Password-
cracking programs know these tricks.
. Do not reuse passwords. If accounts share passwords, as soon as one account is com-
promised, the other ones are, too. If you must write down your passwords on a piece of
paper in order to remember them, that is safer than reusing passwords in today’s envi-
ronment where an online attack is a greater danger than someone rummaging through
your desk.
. Give ridiculous answers to security questions. That way they serve as a secondary pass-
word. Example: What is your pet’s name? Ford Fiesta.
. Enable two-factor authentication if available. When you log in from an unfamiliar
computer, the system will send you a text message with a confirmation code.
. Have password recoveries sent to a secure email address. You don’t want hackers to
know where your password reset messages are sent. Have these messages sent to an
account you never use to send email.
7.2.2 Penalties for Hacking
Under US law, the maximum penalties for hacking are severe. The Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act criminalizes a wide variety of hacker-related activities, including
322 Chapter 7 Computer and Network Security
. Transmitting code (such as a virus or worm) that causes damage to a computer
system
. Accessing without authorization any computer connected to the Internet, even if no
files are examined, changed, or copied
. Transmitting classified government information
. Trafficking in computer passwords
. Computer fraud
. Computer extortion
The maximum penalty imposed for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is 20
years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Another federal statute related to computer hacking is the Electronic Communica-
tions Privacy Act. This law makes it illegal to intercept telephone conversations, email,
or any other data transmissions. It also makes it a crime to access stored email messages
without authorization.
The use of the Internet to commit fraud or transmit funds can be prosecuted under
the Wire Fraud Act and/or the National Stolen Property Act. Adopting the identity of
another person to carry out an illegal activity is a violation of the Identity Theft and
Assumption Deterrence Act.
7.2.3 Selected Hacking Incidents
Despite potentially severe penalties for convicted hackers, computer systems continue
to be compromised by outsiders. Many break-ins are orchestrated by organized groups
with a high degree of expertise, but others are committed by solo hackers who exploit a
security weakness.
In 2003 a hacker broke into computers at the University of Kansas and copied the
personal files of 1,450 foreign students. The files contained names, Social Security num-
bers, passport numbers, countries of origin, and birth dates. The University of Kansas
had collected the information in one place in order to comply with a Patriot Act require-
ment that it report the information to the Immigration and Naturalization Service [7].
In a similar incident two years later, an intruder broke into a University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, computer containing personal information on 5,000 foreign students [8].
In March 2005, someone discovered a security flaw in the online-admissions soft-
ware produced by ApplyYourself and used by six business schools. The discoverer posted
instructions on a Business Week online forum explaining how business school applicants
could circumvent the software security system and take a look at the status of their appli-
cations. It took ApplyYourself only nine hours to fix the flaw, but in the interim period
hundreds of eager applicants had exploited the bug and peeked at their files. A week
later, Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology announced that they would not admit any of the applicants who had ac-
cessed their computer systems without authorization [9].
A hacker gained access to the Sesame Street channel on YouTube in October 2011,
changed the home page, and replaced the videos with pornographic material. The
7.2 Hacking 323
site streamed the X-rated content for 22 minutes before Google could shut down the
site [10].
7.2.4 Case Study: Firesheep
Only a small fraction of the information transported by the Internet is encrypted; ev-
erything else is sent “in the clear” using the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP).
Encrypting everything would make Internet communications slower and more expen-
sive, which is why most Web sites use encryption only when communicating the most
sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, and credit card numbers. You can
tell when a Web site is encrypting the communication because the start of the address in
the Web browser is “https://” (meaning “secure HyperText Transport Protocol”).
The widespread use of Wi-Fi to connect to the Internet has exposed a vulnerability
caused by Internet packets being sent in the clear. A Wi-Fi network uses radio signals to
communicate between devices. If the wireless access point is not using encryption, it’s
easy for devices within range to snoop on the network traffic. (Encryption is the process
of protecting information by transforming it into a form that cannot be understood by
anyone who does not possess the key; i.e., the means of reversing the process and re-
creating the original information.)
Sidejacking is the hijacking of an open Web session by the capturing of a user’s
cookie, giving the attacker the same privileges as the user on that Web site. (You can
find an explanation of cookies in Section 5.3.11.) Ecommerce Web sites typically use
encryption to protect the username and password people provide when logging in, but
they do not encrypt the cookie that the Web browser sends to the user to continue
the session. Sidejacking is possible on unencrypted wireless networks because another
device on the wireless network can “hear” the cookie being transmitted from the Web
site back to the user’s computer. Even though the Internet security community had
known and complained about the sidejacking vulnerabilty for years, ecommerce Web
sites did not change their practices.
On October 24, 2010, Eric Butler released an extension to the Firefox browser called
Firesheep. Firesheep makes it easy for a Firefox user to sidejack open Web sessions. The
user starts the Firefox browser, connects to an open Wi-Fi network, and clicks on a
button called “Start Capturing.” When someone using the network visits an insecure
Web site that Firesheep knows about, the user’s name and photo are displayed in a
sidebar, along with the name of the Web site he is connected to, such as Amazon,
Facebook, or Twitter. By double-clicking on the photo, the attacker becomes logged in
as that user on that Web site and is able to do the same things that the legitimate user is
able to do, such as post status messages and purchase products.
Butler released Firesheep as free, open-source software for Mac OS X and Windows.
He wrote: “Websites have a responsibility to protect the people who depend on their
services. They’ve been ignoring this responsibility for too long, and it’s time for everyone
to demand a more secure web. My hope is that Firesheep will help the users win” [11].
The Firesheep extension was downloaded more than 500,000 times in its first week
of availability, and it attracted a great deal of media attention [12]. The typical story
warned social network users about the dangers of using unencrypted wireless public
324 Chapter 7 Computer and Network Security
networks and criticized the social network companies for not providing more security
[13, 14, 15, 16].
Responding to criticism for providing a tool that makes it easy for ordinary com-
puter users to perform sidejacking, Butler wrote: “The attack that Firesheep demon-
strates is easy to do using tools that have been available for years. Criminals already
knew this, and I reject the notion that something like Firesheep turns otherwise innocent
people evil” [17].
Three months after Butler released Firesheep, Facebook made the following an-
nouncement:
Starting today we’ll provide you with the ability to experience Facebook en-
tirely over HTTPS. You should consider enabling this option if you frequently
use Facebook from public Internet access points found at coffee shops, airports,
libraries or schools. The option will exist as part of our advanced security fea-
tures, which you can find in the “Account Security” section of the Account Settings
page. [18]
In March 2011, Twitter announced it was offering an “Always use HTTPS” op-
tion [19].
ACT UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
The release of Firesheep led the media to focus on the risks associated with the use of
certain Web sites from unsecured wireless networks, and a few months later Facebook
and Twitter made their Web sites more secure. There continues to be strong pressure
for other Web services to follow suit. These are tremendous benefits for everyone who
accesses the Web at a public Internet access point without encryption.
Butler was right when he predicted that Firesheep would not turn people into
criminals. Even though half a million people downloaded Firesheep in the first week,
there was no evidence of a big increase in identity theft or even malicious pranks. The
harms caused by Firesheep appeared to be minimal. Because the release of Firesheep
caused great benefits and negligible harm, we conclude it was a good action from a
utilitarian point of view.
VIRTUE ETHICS ANALYSIS
Butler demonstrated civic responsibility by using his technical skills to develop Fire-
sheep, a piece of software that dramatically illustrated, even to nontechnical people, the
lack of security when unencrypted HTTP messages are sent over an unencrypted Wi-Fi
network. On the day he released Firesheep, Butler wrote on his blog:
On an open wireless network, cookies are basically shouted through the air,
making [sidejacking] attacks extremely easy. This is a widely known problem that
has been talked about to death, yet very popular websites continue to fail at protect-
ing their users. . . . Facebook is constantly rolling out new ‘privacy’ features in an
endless attempt to quell the screams of unhappy users, but what’s the point when
someone can just take over an account entirely? [11]
7.3 Malware 325
Butler’s stated purpose for releasing Firesheep was “to demonstrate just how serious this
problem is” [11]. Later he wrote, “It goes without saying that harassing or attacking
people is a terrible thing to do. To suggest Firesheep was created for this purpose is com-
pletely false; Firesheep was created to raise awareness about an existing and frequently
ignored problem” [17]. All of these statements are characteristic of someone truly in-
terested in protecting the privacy of visitors to popular Web sites. Butler demonstrated
courage by taking personal responsibility for creating Firesheep, and he demonstrated
benevolence by making it freely available.
Therefore, from the perspect of virtue ethics, Butler’s actions and statements were
characteristic of someone interested in promoting the common good. He seemed to
sincerely believe that something significant needed to be done to get the companies to
change their privacy policies.
KANTIAN ANALYSIS
To begin with, accessing someone else’s user account is an invasion of that person’s
privacy and is wrong. Butler clearly agrees with this perspective because he refers to
people who sidejack accounts as “evil.” Butler’s goal was to pressure Facebook, Twitter,
Amazon, and other Web sites to adopt proper security measures to protect their users.
He saw the best way to achieve this end was to release a tool that would bring to light a
well-known security problem that had not gotten sufficient attention.
Criminals already knew how to sidejack Web sessions before Butler created Fire-
sheep. What Firesheep did was make sidejacking so simple that even ordinary computer
users could do it. More than half a million copies of Firesheep were downloaded in the
first week, and undoubtedly some of these people actually used the software to sidejack
Web sessions, which is wrong. It is disingenuous for Butler to “reject the notion that
something like Firesheep turns otherwise innocent people evil.” He provided a tool that
made it much simpler for people to do something that is wrong, and therefore he has
some moral accountability for the misdeeds of the people who downloaded Firesheep.
Ultimately, Butler was willing to tolerate a short-term increase in privacy violations
in the hope that users would pressure Facebook, Twitter, and other sites to improve their
security, which would result in fewer privacy violations in the long term. In other words,
he was willing to use the victims of Firesheep as a means to his end. From a Kantian
perspective, it was wrong for Butler to release Firesheep to the public.
There are other ways Butler could have achieved his goal without using other people.
For example, he could have gone on a popular television show and hacked into the host’s
Facebook page, generating a great amount of publicity without having to release the
software [20].
7.3 Malware
The Firesheep extension to the Firefox browser highlights a significant security weakness
of unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. Computers have security weaknesses, too, and there are
a variety of ways in which malicious software, or malware, can become active on your
computer. If you are lucky, these programs will do nothing other than consume a little
326 Chapter 7 Computer and Network Security
CPU time and some disk space. If you are not so lucky, they may destroy valuable data
stored in your computer’s file system. An invading program may even allow outsiders
to seize control of your computer. Once this happens, they may use your computer as
a depository for stolen credit card information, a Web server dishing out pornographic
images, or a launch pad for spam or a denial-of-service attack on a corporate or govern-
ment server.
7.3.1 Viruses
Viruses represent one way in which malicious code can get into a computer. A virus is
a piece of self-replicating code embedded within another program called the host [21].
Figure 7.1 illustrates how a virus replicates within a computer. When a user executes a
(c)
R
CPU
P
Virus
P
Virus
Q
Virus
File system
(b)
R
CPU
P
Virus
P
Virus
Q
Virus
File system
(a)
R
CPU
P
Virus
P
Virus
Q
File system
Figure 7.1 One way a computer virus can replicate. (a) A computer user executes program
P, which is infected with a virus. (b) The virus code begins to execute. It finds another
executable program Q and creates a new version of Q infected with the virus. (c) The virus
passes control to program P. The user, who expected program P to execute, suspects nothing.
7.3 Malware 327
Figure 7.2 The attachment to this email message probably contains a virus. (The author
didn’t open it to find out.) (Screenshot by Microsoft. Copyright © 2011 by Microsoft Corporation.
Reprinted with permission.)
host program infected with a virus, the virus code executes first. The virus finds another
executable program stored in the computer’s file system and replaces the program with
a virus-infected program. After doing this, the virus allows the host program to execute,
which is what the user expected to happen. If the virus does its work quickly enough, the
user may be unaware of the presence of the virus.
Because a virus is attached to a host program, you may find viruses anywhere you
can find program files: hard disks, thumb drives, CD-ROMs, email attachments, and so
on. Viruses can be spread from machine to machine via thumb drives or CDs. They may
also be passed when a person downloads a file from the Internet. Sometimes viruses are
attached to free computer games that people download and install on their computers.
Today many viruses are spread via email attachments (Figure 7.2). We are all famil-
iar with ordinary attachments such as photos, but attachments may also be executable
programs or word processing documents or spreadsheets containing macros, which are
small pieces of executable code. If the user opens an attachment containing a virus, the
virus takes control of the computer, reads the user’s email address book, and uses these
addresses to send virus-contaminated emails to others, as illustrated in Figure 7.3.
Some viruses are fairly innocent; they simply replicate. These viruses occupy disk
space and consume CPU time, but the harm they do is relatively minor. Other viruses
are malicious and can cause significant damage to a person’s file system.
Commercial antivirus software packages allow computer users to detect and destroy
viruses lurking on their computers. To be most effective, users must keep them up-
to-date by downloading patterns corresponding to the latest viruses from the vendor’s
Web site. Unfortunately, many people are negligent about keeping their virus protection
software up-to-date. According to the statistics office of the European Union, a survey
of Internet users revealed that 31 percent of them had experienced a computer virus in
the previous 12 months that had resulted in a loss of information or time, even though
328 Chapter 7 Computer and Network Security
4
3
CPU
1
2
Internet
File system
Attachment
Virus
Email
Address
book
Attachment
Virus
Email
Figure 7.3 How an email virus spreads. A computer user reads an email with an attachment
(1). The user opens the attachment, which contains a virus (2). The virus reads the user’s
email address book (3). The virus sends emails with virus-containing attachments (4).
84 percent of them said that their computer was running antivirus software [22]. That
means they were not keeping their virus protection current.
To make matters worse, criminals have found a way to profit from people’s con-
cern about viruses and their eagerness to install antivirus software when they believe
their systems are infected. In July 2011, more than two million PCs were infected with
a fake antivirus application that actually routed traffic destined for Google through in-
termediate servers controlled by the attacker. The purpose of the malware appeared to
be to generate “click-through” income for the hackers by directing people to Web sites
containing fake security programs [23].
7.3.2 The Internet Worm
A worm is a self-contained program that spreads through a computer network by ex-
ploiting security holes in the computers connected to the network (Figure 7.4). The
technical term “worm” comes from The Shockwave Rider, a 1975 science fiction novel
written by John Brunner [24].
The most famous worm of all time was also the first one to get the attention of
the mainstream media, which is why it is popularly known as the Internet worm, even
though many other worms have been created that propagate through the Internet. The
primary source for this narrative is the excellent biography of Robert Morris in Cyber-
7.3 Malware 329
W
W
W
W
W
Figure 7.4 A worm spreads to other computers by exploiting security holes in computer
networks.
punk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier, written by Katie Hafner and John
Markoff [25].
BACKGROUND OF ROBERT TAPPAN MORRIS JR.
Robert Tappan Morris Jr. began learning about the Unix operating system when he was
still in junior high school. His father was a computer security researcher at Bell Labs, and
young Morris was given an account on a Bell Labs computer that he could access from
a teletype at home. It didn’t take him long to discover security holes in Unix. In a 1982
interview with Gina Kolata, a writer for S
