New Media Ethics 2009 course

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?

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

Two wrongs and two rights.

Not exactly the most recent case, but still worth revisiting the ethical concerns behind it. It is easy to find more than one ethical question and problem in this case and it involves more than one technology. The dichotomies of lies versus truths, nature versus man-made, wrongs versus rights, beautiful versus ugly,and so on... So who is right and who is wrong in this case? Whose and what rights are invoked and/or violated? Can a right be wrong? Can a wrong be right? Do two wrongs make one right? What parts do the technologies play in this case?

On a side note, given the internet's capability to dig up past issues and rehash them, is it ethical for us to open up old wounds in the name of academic freedom? Beyond research, with IRB and such, what about daily academic discourses and processes? What are the ethical concerns?

This case occurred recently this year. Following a popular TV series 'Gossip Girl', a group of senior students from Ngee Ann Polytechnic targeted Year One students from the School of Film and Media Studies (FMS). Blogs were created to defame the students by sparking off online rumors about them. The blog postings affected friendships as students became very suspicious of each other and started pointing fingers. The image of FMS was also affected especially when read by people outside the school. Though the blogs have been shut down, they have generated over 18000 hits. It is still uncertain who set up the blogs. Ethical Question: With regards to freedom of speech, is there an imaginary ethical line in cyberspace which when over-stepped, must lead to punishment? Who decides when or how this line is being over-stepped? What and how severed should the consequences be? This is because the culprits we practicing free speech but there was a price their victims had to pay. In this case, according to teleological theories, there is neither utilitarianism nor ethical altruism.

Contrast this case in Singapore to other countries like the United States or Malaysia that limits the liability of the consumers of such cases to a specific amount - which policy is better? On another note, I have always been intrigued by the fact that organizations, while being infinitely more powerful, are regarded as individuals with individual rights legally. What does this have to say about the identity of organizations?

The issue of responsibility was heavily debated and the parties identified are 1. the credit card owners, 2. the banks, 3. the retailers. 4. government bodies e.g. MAS, CASE on their regulations and policies. Which party do you all think should shoulder the moral obligations of owning the technology of cashless payment? How then should this translate to the laws and enforcement?

The case came to light when a certain Mdm Tan Shock Ling's credit cards got stolen. Within an hour, the fraudsters used her credit cards to chock up bills amounting to $17k. She was only notified of the purchases when a bank called her to confirm if she has just purchased a rolex watch using one of her credit card. The banks requested her to pay back the bills because they will only cover payments made after she has reported the lost of her credit cards. There were a few articles regarding the issue, with Newpaper sending their reporters (Chinese women) out shopping with an Indian man's credit card. Their investigative journalism showed that retailers are generally lax in their verification of the purchaser's identity vis-a-vis the name and signature.

Hands up if you have heard about Michael Jackson's death? Hands up if you have followed in his events? Hands up if you think a lot of attention has been accredited to many things, except a deep grief for a lost of such a great musician? The death of the King of Pop has once again resurfaced some of MJ's greatest achievements, but have also brought along many of his other not so, as previously judged by the public, desirable acts such as plastic surgery? Leveraging on this case, does the media (in the broad sense of the word) have the ethical obligation to disclose ALL information about their subjects whom they were reporting on, regardless of the consequences?

Former teacher sues Association of Bloggers president and founder, Jayne Goh

The Thio Li-Ann debate

Same case on credit card fraud

More on credit card fraud

Credit Card fraud. CASE's reply.