http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14483896

The article above details the issue surrounding the telecommunications markets in the developing countries. It mentions how mobile technology has increased the proliferation of technology in these regions. It is seemingly allowing for the bridging of the digital divide. These mobile technologies have opened up new markets and introduced new low-cost services to them via their mobile phones.

However, the extent to which mobile technology has helped alleviate this problem is questionable. In fact, it seems that the current divide is spilling over into the Third World markets. The article states that users own multiple handsets and SIM cards and this may result in the skewed representation of the pervasiveness of the technology. And in the same way that there are a select group of people who have access to technology, the same thing is being replicated with mobile technology in these countries. Perhaps the introduction of technology to these emergent markets has to be carried out differently from what is being done in developed countries.

The article talks about the software that the Chinese government has legislated to be installed on all PCs from July 1st onwards. The software is designed to "filter out pornography and other 'unhealthy information' from the Internet". It also allows the government to continuously update the computers with new lists of banned websites as well as monitor Internet use and collect personal information.

Ethical issues:
As mentioned in the article, one of the main problems with this software is that it restricts free flow of information. In this particular case, there is concern that Chinese citizens would be denied access to uncensored news and information. I think that in the interest of the society at large, such a move is detrimental because it does indeed encroach on people's personal freedoms. Is it really ethical for the government to decide for people what is 'good' or 'bad'? And who is to say that such censorship would be beneficial to society anyway? In fact, it would probably arouse interest and curiosity about such content and spur people on to seek it out via other channels. The Internet acts as marketplace for the exchange of ideas and information, and this software goes against this very ideal. Also, by adding the aspect of monitoring usage and collecting personal information, it is also impinging on privacy. This "Big Brother" effect is bound to have a negative impact on the way users surf the Net. And this atmosphere of having to constantly be mindful that you are being watched would deter people from using the Internet freely.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pinkberry12-2008sep12,0,2520279.story

The article is about an American frozen yogurt chain that is suing other 'copycat' businesses. One such chain was even changed the appearance of its physical store after being accused of infringement. In addition to this, similar rival chains in other parts of the world have also been served with cease-and-desist letters.


I think that this is a rather interesting case and is quite similar to the case in which Starbucks sued China-based coffee chain Xingbake over trademark infringement. I believe that in this instance, Pinkberry has the right to sue the imitators especially because some of them were alleged to have copied its "highly distinctive branding". IP rights are designed to protect copyright owners and give them an incentive to continue to innovate. Pinkberry had probably invested a lot of time and money into creating and marketing its yogurt and it would be unethical for other businesses to leech off of them.

However, there is also some ambiguity in dealing with such scenarios. As mentioned by an intellectual property professor in the article, businesses have the right to sue its rivals if the latter has created some confusion with the original product. In this way, it would mean that companies have to first prove that the rivals have indeed copied them and that there are potential losses in terms of revenue and reputation before drawing up a lawsuit. But doing this may be quite tricky in itself because it could be difficult in some cases to show clearly that there has been confusion over the brand.

To summarize the article, it basically talks about a hacker who used his Twitter account to send out messages that were in turn used to direct the infected PCs to malicious websites. Ethical Question: I think it is actually quite important to look at the intention behind using technology in this way. In this case, the hacker took advantage of his Twitter account to engage in criminal activities. But what if this for of hacking was used to perhaps take down an online criminal ring? Would it still be considered 'right' or 'ethical' to hack into other people's computers in that case? Ethical Problem: I think the main problem would be accountability. To what extent should Twitter be held responsible?