http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/01/011402t_divide.jhtml

This article essentially explains the concept of a digital divide, provides some statistics of this issue in the United States and brings up some of the problems that comes with such a subject.

I personally feel that the digital divide is something that will only be rectified with time. As mentioned in the article, nearly 65% of college students already have internet access within their homes, and this percentage just continues to increase. The problem then is not bridging the digital divide within a society, but more of between different societies.This is because if a society is already open to technology, it is simply a matter of time before a large majority of people are assimilated in this techonolgically inclined culture. However, for the poorer undeveloped countries, techonology access and information doens't reach them as easily and it is thus harder to bride the digital divide between these societies and the developed ones.

The ethical questions that surfaces are then two sided. One being how ethical is it to not share such technological information with these people of lesser developed countries. And secondly, is it ethical in the first place to want to introduce technology to these societies who might feel that they are better of the way they are. Is it right to assume that they would be better off with technology in their lives when they have been happily living without it all this time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=a_C1wVkCvPww

Summary

This case revolves around Google being sued for copyright infringement over displaying photos and artworks as thumbnails when previewing search results. Google lost two such cases as the court ruled that no matter how small the thumbnails are, no new work is being created, thus permission is required before they can be shown in search results.

Ethical Questions:
From a utilitarian point of view, can such an act still be considered unethical? Because it is possible to pose an argument that allowing such previews of thumbnails would ultimately contribute to the overall utility of the society which includes contribution to happiness or pleasure to people who get to view it. In turn, would it thus be considered unethical to restrict such actions of people and take away this possible source of enjoyment.

From an opposite point of view, we can also loot at it from the viewpoint of ethical egoism. Following this train of thought, the focus would be placed on self-interest before society. The revenue that could be earned from the artist would then be more important then the social benefit that could be gained from spreading his art, thus it would be considered ethical to impose copyright restrictions on his work.

Description of case: The issue being put across in this case is Spamming. In summary, a Canadian man was accused of sending spam messages to its members through Facebook, using this to earn money for his company. Facebook then took action and sued them under the Can-Spam (Contolling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) Act, and was awarded $873 million in damages for winning this case. Ethical question: I think the most important question here is to what extent is it considered unethical to send messages to people who might not want such information. In the case of Facebook, should there be a line drawn between sending such 'spam' messages to people you do not know, and people who are already on your 'Friends' list or in the same online community? Ethical problem: I feel the problem of wastage surfaces with spamming. Resources are being used up to keep the internet working and these are in turn wasted when people receieve unwanted mail or messages that they end up deleting. Furthermore, there is a large amount of spam received that are also scams, this then touches on the problem of fraud and cheating other users for the sender's benefit.