http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=1

In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government's financial system before the United States invaded Iraq.But the attack never got the green light.


Where should we draw the line when proposing attacks on computer networks, between our own purposes or for the promotion of the ultimate good? During these attacks, be it on bank accounts, power grids, or telecommunications network, there is always the consideration that it will not only affect the targeted area, but cause inconvenience to other people as well. For example in the late 1990s, the American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days. Perhaps the intention started out as good (by the way how do we define good if its just part of their strategy/propaganda?), but in the process, it defeated the purpose of achieving the beneficence for the most number of people, and incur many other 'casualties of war' in the process.

The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined.

Cyberwars can also be a good alternative for wars, where nobody gets killed and everyone can join in. Could cyberwar be a form of ethical political protest? But then again, it is always only those who have the expertise, that can engage in these wars- educated elites perhaps? But by shutting down websites or defacing those which you do not agree with, isn't that suppressing certain voices and violating the rights to freedom of speech?

http://news.cnet.com/The-legal-rights-to-your-Second-Life-avatar/2100-1047_3-6147700.html

Summary: Anshe Chung, the virtual world's biggest land owner in Second Life has convinced YouTube to pull down an off-color video of her virtual self being harassed during an interview. During the interview--which took place in a digital theater in front of dozens of audience members' avatars--a group intent on sabotaging the event attacked it with 15 minutes of animated penises and photographs of Anshe Chung's real-life owner, Ailin Graef, digitally altered to make her look like she was holding a giant penis.

When Anshe Chung Studios filed a complaint with the popular video service claiming that Graef's copyrights had been infringed because images of her avatar were used without her permission, YouTube promptly removed the video.



My thoughts on this:
Just because someone had used a photo of her avatar and digitally enhanced it, does that mean it actually infringed on her copyright laws? So if I created an avatar that accidentally looks like hers, does that mean that Second Life has all the right to terminate my account? If so, everyone would sink into a trend of stamping a mark of creative commons on the back of their avatars.

Furthermore, there is the issue of fair use. Anyone has the right to digitally enhance an image for whatever they create, the rights belong to them. If Youtube or any online news portal want to publish that piece of news and post videos of the incident online, what gives Anshe Chung the right to demand removal of those videos? Reporters have the right to report whatever they want, and the Internet is supposed to be a free-for-all platform to accommodate that very purpose. How come Youtube gave in to their demands so easily? Is it because of some other underlying reason, like power manipulation? What ever happened to digital freedom?

Furthermore, do human rights apply to avatars as well? Avatars are in itself just a representation of humans projecting their identity. There is so much contention about the blurry line between reality and the virtual world. If my avatar killed someone online, would that mean that I should be charged with murder?

http://news.cnet.com/2100-7348_3-6202226.html

This is about Australia putting measures in place which will help curb online pornography, which includes "Web police", ISP-level filters and even awareness campaigns for parents and caretakers. But there were lots of mentioning about child pornography and the responsibility of parents.

To what extent should the ends be allowed to justify the means? It feels like the government is just representing the Christian majority, and by the way, I am sure Christians themselves watch porn too. What are the standards put in place to determine whether something is of adult content? Who set those standards? Based on 'general' beliefs and what the government/"web police'' think is best for the public?

I feel that these measures actually just curtail freedom of expression and the public have the rights to gain access to information. Would we be happier if the government decides what we should look at online? How does it differ from framing in a movie? Censoring/filtering out something may be a way of reinforcing the government's standpoint and their views of what is 'bad' and should be kept out of view.

But then again, censoring may not necessarily be a good cause of action. For example, censored vulgarities in songs are so easily deciphered. Also, what is offensive to some people, may be normal to others! What gives the government the right to determine what is acceptable or not? What's more, the public today do consist of concerted oppositions who are pro-porn, and they will still find ways to upload/view porn. For example would be the use of the word 'PRON' instead of PORN which is censored on certain digital platforms.

This is a funny short article spoofing porn being banned in Australia..
-- > http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1007082/wi-porn-banned-planes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/4686584/Pirate-Bay-victory-after-illegal-file-sharing-charges-dropped.html

Summary: The Pirate Bay, the biggest file-sharing internet site which was accused of illegal activity by some of the world's biggest media firms, has seen some of the most serious charges against it dropped. The dropped charges include "accessory in the production" of copyright-protected material. Founders of The Pirate Bay say they have done nothing illegal because The Pirate Bay does not host copyrighted material. Instead, it directs users to find other file sharers with whom they connect through so-called torrent files to download content.

The case focuses on dozens of works the prosecutor claims were downloaded illegally and they are facing 120 million kronor (£10m) in claims for compensation and damages from music and movie companies including Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Sony BMG.



From this article, I would firstly like to ask whether originality is a myth and should it be valued?

Music and movies are intrinsically fetishistic and designed to cater to the audience's desires. It is a simulacrum, a representation of reality where the distinction between texts and life has been broken down completely (Baudrillard). Mythic figures that movies create are larger than life and audiences take it as true because this simulacra is presented as being believable and plausible, though they may not have experienced the real thing. If so, the claims of illegal production of copyrighted material The Pirate Bay has infringed upon is not valid for those materials have no originality in the first place. These large multinational corporations are just playing power games to preserve ownerships.

Secondly, is it ethical for The Pirate Bay to be charged for copyright infringement?

The ease and effectiveness which modern technology like the internet can reproduce virtually anything, poses a great legal and moral challenge to the traditional notions of property and value. Legally, downloading movies and music is a crime, but it is already so entrenched as a part of the Internet culture. Authorities may tell us that we are criminals when downloading those movies, but we in actual fact don't feel that way at all! In addition, laws are human creations which does not signify that it is in fact true and good. Most probably it is just to serve the interests of capitalists and not towards achieving a utilitarian ideal. Is copyright valid then in the light of egoistic ethics? In China, these file-sharing and downloading sites like tudou and sina actually help pave to the way to circumvent the legal red tape and help citizens to gain more information than the government would like them to have. Regarding homosexual movies in China, then comes the reasoning of having the rights of access to information.

Then comes the question of whether downloading should be considered illegal? it is often likened to theft, where something is taken away from you, and nothing is left. However with the Internet comes the issue of information being an endlessly shareable good. When I download one movie, many other people will still be able to have access to that movie. So is that theft? All that are downloaded are just clones of the original and shouldn't we be advocates of the ethics of sharing? And that brings me back to my first question, where digital reproduction produces simulacra as well! Should copyright be valid in this case when all we're doing are just essentially obtaining copies and not the originals?!!!

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/09/11/when-does-a-doll-become-a-baby-72703-19770082/

Just to share an interesting article about how dolls nowadays are becoming more 'baby-like', which kind of reminds me of Chucky hacking people with blood running down his face and his wacky menacing laugh *shudders*

These dolls are exactly what we call as a simulacra, where it has become the copy of the original baby, the hyperreal; a 'real' baby for those who cannot have babies of their own.

I wonder whether it is even ethical to remake something that is supposed to be 'alive'. Babies are considered precious lives that are celebrated around the world. Although we can say that it is teological, where the ends are what matters, that these parent hopefuls be given a chance at happiness and the satisfaction of having their 'own baby'. However, this blurring representation of reality may go against certain religious beliefs and norms that are already entrenched in society. Hence explaining why the woman at the supermarket (in the article) was revolted and insulted upon discovering that the 'cute child' she touched was actually a 'fake'.

Should this 'product' then be conferred upon the status of an intellectual property? Should it even be allowed to be produced, when it is just a copy of the original baby and infringes on everything that is deemed as normal and natural in society?

Hi~

I found your question quite interesting and this is what I thought of and questions that arose when I try to reason it out...

What exactly is original? This is like a question that tries to grasp the essence of what is the truth? I agree with you that a lot of things are built upon past knowledge, past works, etc. For example before releasing a journal article, you have to conduct research on other school of thoughts, and after that form a research question and design your own research - experiments, focus groups, etc. But by basing your experiments on previous works of knowledge, you are already heading towards building upon or modifying what people have found in the past. Does that contend as originality or adapting accordingly (cultural and historical specificity)? If it is the latter, then is it ethical to even acknowledge that their article or experiments are 'original'?

Besides that, different perspectives and interpretation of results may also affect the quality of 'originality' pertaining to the results obtained through academic research. Let's say even if two parties look at the same 'material' brain, both may not result in the same conclusions. They would definitely base their deductions from past experiences and inherent beliefs about the brain. Even political ideologies and social-cultural factors play a role in determining what they see as being 'original'. It is also impossible to have a blank mind before observing something in order to obtain a truly 'original' conclusion after an 'original' translation of that subject matter. EVEN the translation of the non-human object by researchers could be violating the non-human object's rights of speaking for itself. Is it ethical for us to be representatives of non-human actors and claim to understand them at last or even manipulate them for our own ends?

As for the 2nd question, Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce (WIPO). I feel that whatever the person (applying for IP rights) has reviewed or based his new experiments upon, and whether or not his basis was 'original', the fact that he had delved deeper into the issues and addressed questions that were perhaps not answered in past works, it is still a creation of the mind.

But then again I would also like to question the motivation of scientists/researchers. Since they often claim that their 'quest for truth' or research results are solely for the 'betterment of society' (communitarian), why not make it something like 'open source', where everyone will be able to gain access to that information for free and without the hassle of observing patent and copyright rules? By the way, who created those rules in the first place?

Scientists obviously are constantly producing innovations/scientific breakthroughs to make a name for themselves and gain incentives in return for their efforts which have lasted for years. This could come in the form of material benefits, or merely just to receive accolades and acceptance within the scientific community. Hence I believe that humans are egoistic in many different ways, and often expect something in return. Is it ethical to blame them for being like that? Wanting IP rights?

Lastly, I have a question regarding the Nobel Prize. How are winners determined? How is the committee formed? Those are the people having the authority of determining which is 'valuable', 'better' and of 'worth'. These in fact reflect the dominant discourse of what is considered 'good' within their own ideological frameworks. Is it then ethical for the Nobel Prize to even exist when power structures are at play and may inhibit certain works that are of 'true worth'?

I'm kinda lost in the murkiness of everything. =P