Article Summary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6482189/Scientists-use-computer-to-read-minds-on-screen.html

The article talks about the discovery on the ability to read 'the mind's eye' using a computer. The computer would replicate what humans are seeing or recalling by monitoring their brain activity. The breakthrough, by a team at the University of California, raises the prospect of scientists eventually being able to record dreams or enable police to identify criminals by recalling the memories of a witness. The development is similar to that envisaged in the film Minority Report, in which an individual's private thoughts can be readily accessed by the authorities. Scientists at University College London have conducted separate tests that detect, with an accuracy of about 50%, memories recalled by patients. The discovery is considered as a progress in the field of brain science.

Ethical issues:

Is it ethical to read people's minds on the pretext that it creates good based on the teleological theories? Even if it is said that it is meant for identifying criminals for now, who would be able use it and who would monitor the use of it? Would this lead to a dehumanized world where everyone's thoughts can be computerized and there is no longer anyone with knowledge unknown to others? Would the world become one with no secrets? Would the authorities be able to spy into everyone's minds as depicted in the movie Minority Report?

http://www.startribune.com/business/67823902.html?page=4&c=y

The article discusses about the advantages and risks involved in nanotechnology. The article also states that companies don't face an imminent risk of lawsuits because it's hard to connect a health condition to a nanoproduct made by a specific company because such research is still in the beginning stages.

Given the possible health and environmental risks the technology entails is it ethical to consider using it? Furthermore, is it ethical to exploit the technology since one would most probably not be charged legally as stated in the article? Would the desire for progress with nanotechnology cause irrevocable damage to the society and can that be ethically be argued in the utilitarian perspective that it is for the ultimate good for the larger population

Article Summary:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091002/pl_afp/usitmilitaryintelligencesecurityinternet_20091002130920

The article talks about the US Navy's announcement about it consolidating intelligence gathering and other data capabilities under a single command in a bid to maintain an increasingly challenged US military supremacy in cyberspace. This includes and expansion of the navy's cyber workforce by about 1000 people. This move is meant to maintain US navy's competitive edge over other countries like China. The US navy views the cyber world as a battle space where attacks on US security and military systems are unlikely to wane. Thus there is the need for this consolidation to better equip the US navy to handle such situations.

Ethical Issues and Problems:

Is the consolidation of military information to provide an edge over competitors ethical? By viewing the cyberspace as a battle area, it creates ethical issues of whether it is right to use the Internet for such purposes. The idea of war fare becoming more technologically advanced poses the threat of whether countries that do not have such technology will face higher war threats or be at a disadvantage. In fact, as I mentioned earlier should such technology even be used to enhance military powers?

Article Summary:

http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/riaj-push-for-mobile-phone-drm-across-japan-20090915/

The article talks about the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) attempting to implement a new Digital Rights Management (DRM) system in Japan by 2011. It is aimed specifically at music played on mobile phones. The system would check each time a mobile phone tries to play a track to see if the music had been purchased legally. If the check with the server returns as negative, the song would not play. The important aspect of the system is the fact that DRM would no longer be a layer around the content, but instead a cloud-based solution with content able to move freely, but ultimately controlled through the connected devices it is stored and played upon.

Ethical Questions and Problems:

Is the system an ethical way of protecting digital rights? The digital rights of the music industry might be protected. However, the consumers who may have bought an original CD and ripped the songs to their phone might face difficulty in playing it. The server would not recognize such music as legitimate and as a result would provide a negative response to the phone. This is the same dilemma that digital music bought before the system was implemented would face as well. Hence, the digital rights of the consumers may be affected as they lose their rights over stored content in their mobile phones. Thus the system is biased to the music industry while neglecting the digital rights of the consumers.

I feel such a situation would drive users to figure out ways to beat the system and play their "forbidden" songs. This would then allow for piracy to prevail and eventually the system would become redundant. Therefore, it is necessary to have an ethical balance of the digital rights of the consumer and the music industry to ensure the success of a DRM effort.

Article Summary:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wireds-top-inte/

The article talks about several Internet threats comprising government surveillance and the loss of users' privacy through Internet advertising. Government monitoring of the Internet include the practice of wiretapping internet traffic. This practice began in the United States. Furthermore, the privacy of Internet users is breached by Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) employed mostly by Internet Service Providers. This technology can monitor a user's every online move as it filters and ultimately controls the Internet traffic that passes through the ISP's pipes. Online advertising services then pay ISPs for the information gathered by DPI about the users to allow behavioral advertising.

Ethical Questions and Problems:

1) Are methods such as wiretapping in the name of national security ethical? Such practices spy on unsuspecting individuals who may not even be committing a crime. Hence, it deprives them of their rights to surf the Internet freely. However, this is a problem of individual rights versus national security. This then brings us to the question of whether the loss of a little privacy online for a greater good should be allowed.

2) Is the data collection about users and the provision of such data to advertising companies ethical? Technologies such as DPI invade the privacy of Internet users and collect information about them without their knowledge. Thus is it right to collect these data and use them for advertising purposes?

Case Summary:

The article is about an intellectual property infringement that took place in China. A court in Eastern China has sentenced four people to up to three-and-a-half years in prison for selling bootleg versions of Microsoft's Windows XP software. The court stated that the website managed by the four had offered free downloads of the pirated software to at least 10 million users while raking in profits from Internet advertisements. China's efforts to stop intellectual property infringement theft are considered weak and ineffective.

The URL of the article: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090821/ttc-china-court-copyright-piracy-microso-0de2eff.html

The Ethical Questions:

1) Is it right to blame the authorities of China for the rampant online intellectual property theft from the country? Is it not the individual's responsibility to ensure that he/she does not engage in such activities? Is legal enforcement regulation needed for individuals to refrain from such activities?
2) Could sharing intellectual property online be considered a theft? Is it not the right of the person who purchased the product to do what he/she wants with it, even if that is sharing it online with others?

Problems:

The ethical problem would be to decide who is responsible for the question one. For question two it is the rights of the creator versus the rights of the consumer.

Interesting Case In summary, the article discusses the court ruling of an online defamation case that took place in Korea. It involves Kim, the victim, who experienced the spread of false articles and defamatory comments that blamed him for his ex-girlfriend's suicide. The final verdict held Internet portals liable for the damages caused by the articles they displayed on their website. This is despite the articles having been provided by external media outlets. The Supreme Court ordered four of the major portals involved in the case to pay a combined 30 million ($22,500) as compensation to Kim. Ethical Question I feel there are a few ethical issues that are at play in this case. One would be if it is ethical to publish sensitive information about an individual without his/her permission on the Internet. This is of more importance when the credibility of the information is dubious. Another ethical question would be if Internet Service Providers can be held responsible for information they did not create. Is it fair to charge them on the basis that they have failed to regulate the content displayed on their sites? Problem The problem with the first ethical question is that it creates a question of individual privacy rights against the freedom of speech for another. Publishing sensitive information that might not even be true about an individual infringes his/her privacy rights. However, it is the right of the publisher to have the freedom of speech to state what he/she thinks. The issue with the second ethical question is that the Internet Service Providers merely provide a platform for people to express their views. They should not be held liable for comments posted by individuals using the website. However, the opposing view would expect the ISPs to be responsible for the content they allow to be displayed on their site. They have to regulate the content to ensure that sensitive or controversial information that would cause irrevocable damage to others