QAs

Strategies for Answering Discussion and Essay Questions

Chapter 9

IX: Strategies for selected Discussion and Essay Questions in Chapter 9 (see pages 296-

297 in the textbook)

A. Strategies for Selected Discussion Questions in Chapter 9

2. “Deep linking” is the ability to connect directly to a sub-page of a Web site without first

having to access the site’s main page or home page. We saw that in the case of Ticketmaster

v. Microsoft, deep inking can be controversial. One problem with deciding controversial cases

involving deep linking on the Web has to do with determining what the legal status of a Web

site is. If a Web site is considered private property, then users wishing to enter that site can be

told which path they must take (just as the owner of home can inform visitors about which

door they must use to enter the house). If a Web site is considered a public space, on the

contrary, then the site’s owner should not be able to restrict users’ movements in that space by

determining which access point (if more than one is available) they must use to enter when

linking to that site.

3. We saw that Spinello believes that spam is morally objectionable for two reasons; one

utilitarian and the other deontological. For one thing, he points out that spam has harmful

consequences, because of its financial impacts, such as cost shifting and the consumption of

valuable network resources. Spinello notes that spam consumes and strains valuable

computing resources. We saw that he also pointed out that even if Internet resources were

infinite and there were no negative utilitarian consequences, spam would still be morally

objectionable because it does not respect the autonomy of individual users as persons or as

“ends-in-themselves.” He appeals to (Kant’s version of) a deontological argument to show

why spam cannot be universalizable. In Chapter 2, we saw that in Kant’s system, a practice is

universalizable only if it can coherently apply to all persons without exception. So, Spinello

makes a plausible case for why spam can be considred morally objectionable on deontological

as well as utilitarian grounds.

Miller andMoor (2008) take a different path in their analysis of moral objections to spam. For

one thing, they argue that an adequate ethical analysis of spam also needs to take into

consideration criteria such as accountability and deception. Recall their distinction between

Unsolicited Commercial Bulk Email (UCBE) that is non-fraudulent (NF-UCBE) and that

which is fraudulent (F-UCBE). Miller and Moor believe F-UCBE should always be

condemned, they argue that some cases of NF-UCBE can be justifiable from a moral point of

view, in certain cases. They imagine a scenario in which a whistleblower might send a

message to a large commercial mailing list to alert recipients of an injustice or a danger.

Miller and Moor suggest that in this scenario, the whistleblower may have justifiable reasons

for sending the email broadly and for wishing to be anonymous. They point out Miller that in

this whistle-blowing scenario, the “intent” of the sender needs to be taken into consideration.

So, in their scheme, there can be some cases where sending spam in the form of NF-UCBE

would be morally justifiable.

B. Strategies for Selected Essay Questions in Chapter 9

1. On the one hand, companies like Sony BMG have an interest, as well as a right, in

protecting their online content. On the other hand, these companies also have an obligation to

obey the law in their effort to track down individuals who make unauthorized use of their

copyrighted content. While DRM systems are legal, it is not clear that using spyware of the

sort employed by Sony BMG to track users is also legal. It would seem reasonable for users to

expect to be told that, when they purchase a CD, their activities can be monitored via the

company’s DRM systems. In that case, the practice would be open (or transparent) and could

be more easily challenged in the courts, and a ruling one way or another on the legality of this

practice could be established. So, a model of transparency on the part of the companies who

use DRM systems would seem to be the best compromise at this point in time.

2. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was struck down as unconstitutional because the

US Supreme Court ruled that this act was over-reaching in terms of its scope. However, the

portion of CDA known as the Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) was originally

upheld, despite the Court’s ruling against CDA overall. The CPPA was also eventually struck

down as unconstitutional (in 2002). The Child Online Pornography Act (COPA), passed in

1998, was also declared unconstitutional. One problem with each of these child-pornography

acts is that they failed to distinguish between real children being represented on a computer

screen in some type of pornographic depiction, and “virtual children” (i.e., computer-

generated images of children) being similarly represented. To determine whether these acts

should have been declared unconstitutional, review the full texts of the court decisions, which

are available on the Web.

We also saw that the Supreme Court upheld the Children’s Internet Pornography Act (CIPA).

Yet the majority of the Court’s members also argued that it was unconstitutional to filter

information accessed by adults in public libraries, where CIPA applies. So some have

questioned whether the Court has been consistent in its decisions regarding online

pornography, as it affects children.