http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8046112.stm

Only the first part of the article before "Cheap and Continuous" is relevant. Although the whole article is about saving the environment, it hints that technological progress has not resulted in social progress.

For example, even though 130 years has passed since Thomas Edison gave us the electric bulb, more than two billion people still do not have the luxury of electricity.

The article also highlights the wastefulness of technology as science is biased towards creating things for the desires of the people of the first world nation but have neglected the true concens and issues of the world. To quote, "We've invented iPods and flat-screen TVs, but somehow have not invested in ways to eliminate an Iron Age technology that consumes wood inefficiently and creates harmful indoor air pollution".

Can we associate technological process with social process? Though, Man keeps pushing for groundbreaking discoveries, does these cutting edge technologies filter down to the other nations which are not as advanced? If it doesn't, is it really progress at all? Can it be progress, if we are inventing things that realistically cannot be made available or address the real needs of the world? For eg, cures of diseases are not widely available to everyone in this world as it is too expensive.

To put it simply: Do the people of Africa need the technology of cyber robots, or anti virus software when they are busy trying to feed themselves.

Should society be focused on social progress (eg, making ways of ensuring people get widespread availability of electricity) and then bring in technological advances later?

Just some thoughts:)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

Summary: The scientist in the article forsees that there is a possibility of nanotechnologies replacing many of our vital organs in 20 years time.This will allow humans to do things that are impossible. For example scuba diving for 4 hours without taking in oxygen and sprinting for 15 minutes without taking a breath.

Mr. Kurzweil claims it will allow humans to live forever and even make illnesses such as heart attacks seem insignificant. The article ends off saying that "we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."


Ethical problems/questions:

1.Will nanotechnology lead to humans being dehumanised? The futuristic picture the scientist paints of us humans, makes us seem so mechanical.

2. If this does come to pass, will it create a divide between the rich and the poor? Will only the rich be able to afford it and thus live forever? Will there be second-class humans then since they are not as fit and superior enough?

In my opinion, the claimed benefits of nanotechnology will not be evenly distributed as only affluent nations will be given more access to these technology. Already, the majority of nanotechnology research and development are concentrated in developed countries and big MNCs. Developing countries therefore are already at a losing end.

If what Kurzweil forsees come to past, a society of inequalities and even discrimination will definitely rise up as these super humans are better than the normal human is every single way.

I think what you raised up is a good point.

On one hand, there should be censorship to extreme activism. I think extreme forms could be like using the online platform to translate into real world actions which are detrimental to society, for example, terrorism.

However, what happens when the purpose for example, is to topple down a dictatorship ? Will be it ethical then to achieve democracy using the online platform to organise terrorist activities that end up harming people?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-5852898-7.html

Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist is being convicted of sending a government's 'top secret' message that was sent to the newspaper agency he was working at to foreign newspapers.

Yahoo Holdings in Hong Kong helped provide detailed information to the governmental authorities, proving he did send the document out. Shi has admitted to sending the email out but that it was not a secret document. The email contained a warning associated with dangers of dissidents returning to mark the 15th anniversary of the Tianamen Square massacre.

This has caused an uproar in the blogging community as they see Yahoo violating personal rights and freedom. Yahoo has responded that it needs to abide by the laws of the country that it is working in.

Ethical question:

Is it ethical for Yahoo to have stepped in? Looking at it under an ethical point of view in business, it may seem so as they are abiding by the law. It is ethical egoism that drives them as they stand to lose everything if they do not comply with the country's laws.

But, the online platform is used as a place for freedom of speech. Does Yahoo then have the responsibility to the community to protect this freedom on the Internet?

Things to ponder:

From a blogger in the article: "This is a problem faced by every Internet company doing business in China. The standard explanation offered by corporate executives is, 'We have to follow the law.' This nicely avoids the issue of whether the law is unjust. If the law is evil, can you follow the law and still 'do no evil,' as Google has publicly pledged?"

Can the freedom of the Internet become a reality when there are so many different conflicting interests among stakeholders?

I think another question has to be brought up: Is the information meant to be public or private?

If the information is public, then users should know they are risking identity theft by putting information of themselves online.

lee weiting wrote:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-in-search-of-online-privacy-806284.html
>
> This article discusses on the issue of search engine retaining the users's data for a long period of time. Google argues that the retaining of data was necessary for the search engine software and i agree that is through the policy that we the users are able to enjoy such convenience when surfing the Internet From the utilitarianism point of view, this action can be considered ethical. but i would like to question the following,
>
> To what extent is the retaining of information really essential? The retaining of information by search engines has increased the risk of online criminal activity such as identity theft. they retain the data at the expense of users privacy, is it ethical for them to do so?

1) I think it depends what is being censored. I think things like opinions should not be censored because it is violating the natural rights of a human.

However, one can argue that online censorship can become ethical when it comes to censorsing obscene materials such as child pornography.


Meenatchi wrote:
> Article Summary:
>
> http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20090820/ttc-tech-us-column-pluggedin-96247d2.html
>
> The article discusses the dilemma of human rights activists in China and Iran as they search for web privacy tools to protect them from being caught. In China, online censorship is done by the government for political reasons. The citizens are denied access even to websites such as Gmail, Hotmail and Twitter. Hence, to get around this censorship, human rights activists in these countries are resorting to using Internet privacy tools such as 'Tor'. 'Tor' scrambles information then sends it over the Web. It gets past firewalls while hiding the user's location.
>
> Ethical Questions & Problems:
>
> 1) Is online censorship ethical? Why does the government have the right to determine what information its citizens have access to? Online censorship can be seen as an invasion into the privacy and rights of individuals.
> 2) Is the creation of Internet privacy tools such as 'Tor' ethical? The tools allow individuals to access the Internet with their identity hidden. Thus they could engage in activities that are against the law without being caught. Is creating a tool that could be more destructive the right way to combat online censorship?

Elaine said: 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?

My reply:
I think the article mentioned the importance of protecting children from porn. That is why they need to determine which is of adult content. I think the government is probably acting from the deontological perspective. They feel it is their duty and obligation to protect children of their country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/technology/11iht-download.1.7846678.html?scp=20&sq=copyright&st=Search

A student previously fined for breaking copyright laws at Brown University on Rhode Island is now interested in changing intellectual property regulations. He has been helping out in Students for Free Culture which as been springing up on university campuses.

This organisation advocates a liberalisation of restrictions of copyrights law so that information from software and music can be shared freely. Their vision is a refusal to accept a future of digital feudalism. However, not everybody agrees with this.

Ethical Issue:

The basis for the liberalisation of restrictions of copyright laws is so that information can be shared freely among others and therefore reducing the inequality gap among people.

However, one has to note that with the liberalisation of copyright laws, another problem springs up. It is the motivation of the authors and makers of the intellectual properties. There is no more motivation for them. Thus, would the liberalization of restrictions of copyright laws be truly ethical and beneficial for society?


Things to ponder about:

1. Perhaps, what will be truly beneficial to society is where intellectual properties are still given protection. However, free sharing based on case by case basis should still be allowed. This is beneficial for both parties. It is also ethical so that for example, people who truly cannot afford are allowed access to it. Then, we will not have to be fear a future of digital feudalism.

2. Once someone has purchased the product, does he/she have the right to share it with others?

I think that companies concerned over this issue due to the loss of potential income constitutes egoism. They mainly want to defend their interests without considering the beneficial impact of the video on society.

However, this is mainly so because of the way modern society and capitalism (or at least what society thinks of capitalism, according to Stallman) is structured. Unless there can be a change of mindset of society as a whole, I am afraid restrictive copyright laws will always be an issue and will be here to stay.



Ang Yao Zong wrote:
> http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html
>
> This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers").
>
> The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company.
>
> In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009)
>
> Question:
>
> In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler.
>
> By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective).
>
>
> However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission.
>
> On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society?
>
> For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?

This news story is about Horizon realty suing a woman called Amanda Bonnen for defamation on Twitter. Amanda Bonnen has micro blogged her feelings towards her apartment on Twitter. She was unhappy with the mould she found in her apartment. This has stirred a response from Horizon realty as it sees the comment she made as false. Also as Twitter is such a widespread network, the company sees that it has to protect its reputation online. Thus, they have decided to sue Amanda Bonnen. Ms Bonnen has already recently moved out of the apartment and has been unavailable to comment on the lawsuit. Her Twitter account has also been deleted. Ethical question: I think many consider posting complaints and comments on Twitter similar to complaining to or having a conversation with friends over coffee. If this is the case, is it ethical or 'right' to be allowed to sue people like Amanda Bonnen? Ethical problem: This case brings up the point of the freedom of speech in public and private spaces. What are the boundaries and definitions of public and private space with the rise of new technologies such as Twitter? On what space (public or private) is Twitter then operating on and how much freedom of speech is allowed?