10/29/2017 0 Comments Reading 09: Net NeutralityFrom the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and governments regulating most of the internet must treat all data on the Internet the same and not discriminate or charge deferentially by user, content, website, platform, application, attached equipment, or method of communication. In other words, the only thing that matters is the amount of data, provided that the data and services being used are legal. The presence of net neutrality allows for startups to supplant established sites and companies on the internet because they can’t monopolize it. Net Neutrality allows for fairer competition, and its absence would give favor to larger, more powerful companies. The FCC and the communications are both pushing against net neutrality, but that’s no surprise being that a great number of FCC officials come from careers in these communication companies (and presumably still have interests and partnerships there). Some popular reasons against net neutrality include, but are not limited to, that it: - Discourages investment - Burdens small businesses with more processes - Is good for the consumer These reasons have holes, and ultimately boil down to some corporate tomfoolery and sleight of hand. Overall investment is up, per the FCC, and there are a number of executives on record saying to their investors that net neutrality and Title II won’t negatively affect their investments. Small businesses (ISPs) do have to cover a couple more things to comply to it, but this can be solved through an allowance or tax break rather than revoking net neutrality and Title II entirely. The FCC has already taken steps to accommodate any businesses burdened by its regulations, so this isn’t an unreasonable idea, and it still allows for proper net neutrality. The reason they say it’s better for consumers is because there’s a possibility that certain services would be selected to no longer count towards data bandwidth caps. However, the excluded services would be selected by ISPs, whose ultimate goal is to make money. What interest would they have to exclude streaming services that would make them the most money? Little to none. I am strongly for net neutrality and believe that the prices we pay for internet can only increase (despite how expensive it already is) while the quality of service can only decrease (despite how poor it already is, see: Comcast) if they set their own rules more than they already do. If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation? I’m in favor of net neutrality. We currently have it as is, and I think that we could continue enforcing it as we have. We’re weary of companies slowing down speeds as they see fit, cracking down as needed. As a consumer, we can be sure that it’s been better as it is compared to how it would likely be if it were removed. It doesn’t burden small corporations as explained above, and it doesn’t harm large ISPs in any way other than preventing further monopolization of the market. In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that "the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right". Additionally, do you have trust in an unbridled free market or does the government have a role to play in ensuring a level playing field? I do believe that the internet, in one capacity or another, should be able to be used by all. I think that to access it on a personal device that you need to be able to pay for that device and for the service (as one pays for water or electricity). But I also think that internet access should remain publicly possible through a public library or some equivalent substitute. I do think that the government should have a role in the interaction of the economy, because if too much power were to swing in the favor of any powerful and necessary party (corporate or government), it could be difficult to counter issues arising from that.
0 Comments
10/21/2017 0 Comments Reading 08: Corporate ConscienceFirst, what exactly is the concept of Corporate Personhood and what are its legal, social, and ethical ramifications?
The concept of Corporate Personhood is that a corporation, a number of person united in one body for a purpose per NPR, has constitutional rights like that of a citizen of the United States. These rights extend to some rights, and not others. The rights it does extend to include the right to free speech, freedom from search and seizure, and more. However, it doesn’t include things like the right to marry or the right to “plead the fifth.” The ramifications of corporate personhood (or the lack thereof) are significant. The extent of corporate personhood may be said to be proportional to a corporation’s power. If they have little rights (or no corporate personhood), then they may be acted unjustly upon by the government. If their rights are too significant, then they may be able to do what they want with little accountability or consequence. In such a situation, we have to worry ethically about purposes for creating corporations, as it would seem to be the case that incorporating is a means of committing crimes and carrying out poor moral endeavors because they wouldn’t be able to be prosecuted appropriately. For the IBM and the Holocaust case study, do you believe IBM was ethical in doing business with Nazi Germany? Should corporations be responsible for immoral or unethical use of their products? Should corporations refrain from doing business with immoral or unethical organizations or persons? I don’t believe that IBM was ethical in doing business with Nazi Germany. Within the historical context of the time, even if the extent of the genocide wasn’t yet clear, it was obvious early on that the Nazi party were some bad dudes hell-bent on screwing over some Jewish people. It seems that there was enough to go on for IBM to understand that their machines would at least be used for heavy oppression of the Jews. I don’t think that companies should be held responsible for immoral or unethical use of their products provided that they legitimately didn’t know that they would be used for that purpose. If it was sold to them without suspicion of such use or if it was taken from an appropriately secured area, then I would say that the company isn’t liable for the activities that occurred. An exception to this would be if a product’s usage was pretty obviously restricted to criminal or immoral usage. As such, I do believe that corporations should refrain from doing business with obviously immoral or unethical organizations or persons. If corporations are afforded the same rights as individual persons, should they also be expected to have the same ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities? Discuss why or why not, particularly in the context of your chosen case study. Definitely. Put simply: I think it’s absurd that a corporation, a bunch of persons, can aid in murdering a population and suffer little consequence relative to what an individual person would if they did the same. If we don’t restrict them and hold them to the same standards as people, incorporating will increasingly be seen as a means to being free from accountability and the responsibility to act ethically. 10/9/2017 0 Comments Reading 07: Online AdvertisingIs it ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it in order to sell you products and services? What responsibilities do companies have to their end users in regard to this information?
I think that it’s ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it for the mentioned purposes, provided that it’s done through legal means and done for purposes that aren’t malicious. If a company wished to gather this information in order to propose deals and show ads that they felt I would be more likely to respond to as a consumer, that’s just market and consumer research. I personally think it’d be odder for them to be able to provide a better consumer experience and elect not to do it. As Rebecca Rosen of The Atlantic wrote in her article, “What Does It Really Matter If Companies Are Tracking Us Online?”, it’d be widely accepted as immoral if companies were using this data against users, as if they identified that a husband was buying flowers the day after his anniversary and jacked up the price for orders placed by him, his machine, or his payment information, etc. Companies undoubtedly have the obligation to keep this information stored securely. I imagine most terms and conditions allow for companies to retain and use that data, as well as reserve the right to sell it to who they see fit. Those conditions do not allow for malicious parties to freely gain access to that data, so companies need to do what they can to prevent such breaches. As said above, I also feel they have the obligation of using for non-malicious purposes and shouldn’t use this data to make for a poorer experience for their users, as users seem to believe that their data is being shared in exchange for a better experience, rather than a worse one. Does privacy become an unrealistic expectation in light of this pervasive information gathering? I think privacy online from the services you make use of is an unrealistic expectation in today’s connected atmosphere. A lot of these services we rely heavily on are free, but are only so because of their alternative methods of generating revenue (data mining us, advertising). If we wish to continue to use these services, we have to be prepared to meet their terms of operation. I do think that we can have certain expectations to be met in the name of protecting our privacy to an extent. We should be able to hold these companies accountable for not unintentionally disclosing our data to malicious parties, for example. There’s been discussion that’s been had about privacy on the internet being more reasonable to expect than in physical spaces because we’re accessing it from our personal devices and homes, but I feel that’s not reasonable as the internet’s sphere of influence is outside of your device or home. You’re connecting to several different places that effectively exist elsewhere. Do you find online advertising too invasive or is it tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools? I think that most online advertising is tolerable. While some sites really over-do it (ads that block the whole page every time you scroll, play sound without warning, show NSFW images on an otherwise non-NSFW site), I feel most are okay for the good services that they provide. That being said, I personally do still use AdBlock. It makes for a better experience and eliminates most of those exceptionally poor experiences with certain sites that I alluded to earlier. Additionally, it provides protection from ads that introduce security flaws to the site (and by extension, your machine). There’s been discussion of it not being ethical because websites rely on ads to keep their services free for users, and by blocking ads, you’re keeping food from finding the mouths of the children of those who work for these companies. I find issue with this line of reasoning. You’re not obligated to stare at teenagers flipping signs on the road-side just because they’re there, you’re not obligated to talk with those who approach you at the mall from their niche kiosk or those who knock on your door at your home, you’re not obligated to purchase a product or use a service from a company just because the employees of that company have children to feed, so why should you be obligated (at first interaction) to subject yourself to this type of advertising? The counter argument to this sentiment would be that you’re actually using the service, so you need to “pay” for it. If the company feels so strongly that this agreement should be honored (despite users very rarely actively and clearly consenting to such ads and just going to a site), then they should detect users’ ad blockers and force the user to white-list their site in order to use their services. That way, if the user really wants to use their services and forgo AdBlock, they can. If they don’t, then they don’t get to use the services, either. I believe it’s a fair dynamic. |
AuthorNikolas Dean Brooks is a current Senior at Notre Dame. This blog is for the "Ethics and Professional Issues" course under Dr. Peter Bui. Archives |