http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/02/military-turing-test-would-make-war.html

This question was raised at the question was raised at the conference on The Ethics of Autonomous Military Systems -> "Can a robot commit a war crime?"

How ethical can a robot can?
I believe the answer to this question depends on how ethical were the creators of the robots. Disregarding any glitches that might have occured during the creation of the robot, the creator undisputtingly are the ones that 'inserted' whatever ethical 'logarithms' possible into the robot and brought it to life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7872425.stm

The article effectively speaks of how CCTV cameras and DNA database are threats to privacy. Though many states have reasoned them for being a 'vital' tool to fight crimes like terrorism, civil liberties campaigners said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear".

Ethical questions:

Where is the line to be drawn to strike a balance between fighting crimes to protect the public while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework to protect civil liberties.

Should there be a new breed of 'checks and balances' third party group to prevent the state from over-stepping their boundaries?

Do users have a right to privacy and confidentiality of their data communications that takes priority over the national security interests of a legitimate government?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/01/25/google-china060125.html

Google agreed to Beijing's censorship policies limiting search results in order to get broader access to the large market. Google said providing some content in China is better than being blocked completely.
"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." This move has upset many media watchdog groups including Reporters without Borders.

Ethical Question:
Is freedom of expression compromised here?
On one hand, without censorship, the people of China will be denied access to Google content.
On the other hand, with censorship, the people of China will at least have access to Google though partially. Therefore, either way, online users in China is denied complete freedom of expression. The better end of the bargain seems to be having censorship than not to have it at all.

Also, has freedom of expression been neglected in favor of establishing business ties and relations with the hard-handed China? Is Google being ethical? Will it have moral repercussions on the rest of the world. International bodies may respond negatively to Google's move.

http://www.tnp.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,209251,00.html

1) Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) raided 13 shops in Lucky Plaza and arrested 27 men and one woman, aged between 19 and 55 years old, for offenses relating to copyright and trademark infringements. Over 794 items were seized for investigation. They include intellectual property infringing accessories, desktop computers, laptops, and external hard disks and memory sticks. The items have an estimated street value of $60,000.

2) While the raids took place, neighboring tenants remain tight-lip. When the New Paper approached them, many refuse to comment fearing that those arrested might seek revenge. One tenant reasoned that their silence was due to them being neighbors.

Ethical Issues:
1) Firstly, it was already unethical for the shops to be transacting and profiting from pirated articles. For how long has this been going on for and why is it only now that they are being caught? Were neighboring tenants aware? Were there being tight-lipped and ignorant? This brings up the issue of social citizen responsibility. Are they equally as accountable for the illegal activities taking place? Being aware of illegal activities but not reporting them can also be said to be unethical. This is equivalent to witnessing a murder and keeping quiet just because the murderer was a neighbor.
In my opinion, following the deontological approach, neighboring tenants did not perform their duty towards society. They were unethical in not following the golden rule of reporting illegal activities to the police.
According to the teleological approach, it can be said the the neighboring tenants were egoistic is creating good just for themselves. Nothing was done for the benefit of the whole society (utilitarian ethics).

2) From the customer viewpoint, was it ethical for them to keep these illegal shops in business by purchasing their goods? Is being oblivious to the law a convenient excuse?
By contributing to the illegal pirate economy, they are not being morally an socially responsible to the community resulting in some communitarian ethical issues.

3) What role do landlords play in ensuring that their tenants do not engage in illegal activities? Do they have a strong role? Or is it left to the moral individual responsibility of the tenants?