Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introductory Comments
the Internet has the potential to magnify the power of the individual and fortify democratic processes. ..the control of technology through law and regulation has often been a futile effort, correcting technology with other technology has been more effective.
Ex) law has had a hard time controlling dissemination of pornography on the Internet but blocking software that filter out indecent material has been more successful
Cyberspace Hype
Cyberspace is unavoidable Cyberspace is unregulable No nation can live without it No nation will be able to control behavior in it A place where individuals are inherently free from the control of real space sovereigns
Connecting 2
The market also constrains cyberspace as in real space change the price of access and constraints on access differ Architecture, the fourth, is most significant of the four He calls this CODE - meaning the SW and HW which constitute cyberspace the set of protocols implemented or codified in the SW of cyberspace that determine how people interact, or exist in the space It sets the terms upon which we enter or exist in cyberspace, just like the architecture of the real space
Why?
Key difference is the code that constitutes cyberspace Its current architecture is essentially unregulable (at least in 1995) The architecture of 1995 and 1996 essentially allowed anyone w/ access to roam w/o identifying who they were - Net95 Ones identity was invisible to the net then One could enter w/o credentials, w/o an internal passport Users were fundamentally equal, essentially free
But...
We know that the net has no nature, no single architecture Net 95 is a set of features or protocols that constituted the net at a particular period in time Nothing requires it to always be that way (remember malleability?) Court spoke as if it had discovered the nature of the net and was therefore deciding on the nature of any possible regulation of the net
@Harvard
One cannot connect ones machine to the net unless the machine is registered That is, licensed, approved, verified Only members of the Univ community can register their machine Once registered all transactions over the net are potentially monitored and identified to a particular machine Anonymous speech on this net is not permitted Access can be controlled based on who someone is, interactions can be traced
Two Views
Controlling access is the ideal at Harvard Facilitating access is the ideal at Univ of Chicago These two views are common today at Univs across America UoC is Net95 Harvard is not an Internet but an Intranet architecture within an intranet, identity is sufficiently established such that access can be controlled and usage monitored
Philosophies
They both are built from TCP/IP but at Harvard you have Internet Plus, the plus means the power to control They reflect two philosophies about access and reflect two sets of principles or values on how speech should be controlled they parallel difference between political regimes of freedom and political regimes of control
The Point
Nothing against Harvard or Chicago Wants us to see that at the level of a nation, architecture is inherently political In cyberspace, the selection of an architecture is as important as the choice of a constitution The code of cyberspace is its constitution, it sets terms for access, sets the rules, controls their behavior, a sort of sovereignty competing with real space sovereigns in the regulation of behavior of real space citizens
Architecture Shift
From an architecture of freedom to an architecture of control As it becomes an architecture of control it becomes more regulable US government is moving the architecture in these directions How? The government can regulate the architectures in cyberspace so that behaviors in cyberspace become more regulable
A Moral Ideal
So, the ultimate good, the human flourishing of ourselves and of others should function as a prescriptive guidepost of enduring value, serving as a basis for crafting laws, developing social institutions, or regulating the Internet Applying this to policy making can be difficult so we have ethical principles such as the golden rule or from Kant, act so that you treat humanity always as an end and never as a means Author thus feels that the role of morality is the ultimate regulator of cyberspace that sets the boundaries for activities and policies in figure 1-1 on page 7, it sits above the four constraints of Lessig.
Other Philosophers
French philosopher, Jacques Ellul writes, technique has become a dominant and untranscendable human value.
The totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency in every field of human activity Feels that modern technology has irreversibly shaped the way we live, work, and interact in this world
Martin Heidegger saw technology not merely as a tool that we can manipulate but as a way of being in the world that deeply affects how we relate to that world.
Authors Concerns
Technological neutralism and utopianism seem problematic
Technology does condition with givens that are virtually impossible to overcome Langdon Winner describes this as the adjustment of human ends to match the character of the available means Author writes that it is an exaggeration to claim that computer and network technology locks us into a virtual but inescapable iron cage Middle ground between these extremes is technological realism
although technology has a force of its own, it is not independent of political and social forces. Indicates this is echoed in Lessigs work, sometimes code is an instrument of social and political control, it is not always neutral We do have the capacity to redirect or subdue technology when it becomes necessary Author agrees with Charels Taylor, We are not, indeed, locked in. But there is a slope, an incline in things that is all too easy to slide down.
Utilitarianism (p11)
This is a teleological theory and is most popular version of consequentialism Classic utilitarianism was developed by 2 British philosophers: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill Right course of action is to promote the general good, can be described in terms of utility Utility refers to the net benefits (or good) created by an action Another way to think of this is, persons ought to act in a way that promotes the maximum net expectable utility, that is, the greatest net benefits or the lowest net costs, for the broadest community affected by their actions. On one level, utilitarianism asks us to make moral decision by means of a rational, objective cost/benefit analysis
Summary of Utilitarianism
Theory has strengths but some serious flaws too In certain contexts, could be used to justify the infliction of pain on a small number of individuals for the sake of the happiness or benefits of the majority. No intrinsically unjust or immoral acts for the utilitarian which poses a problem What happens when human rights conflict with utility? This theory lacks sensitivity to the ideals of justice and human rights
Immanuel Kant
Consequences of an action are morally irrelevant Actions only have moral worth when they are done for the sake of duty According to Kants systematic philosophy, our moral duty is simple: to follow the moral law which, like the laws of science or physics, must be rational And, like all rational laws, the moral law must be universal Kant, is one of the more difficult to read philosophers but quite interesting. A good example (for readability and understandability) can be found on pg. 16 (you read).
Understanding Kant
Kants universal law is expressed as what is called the categorical imperative: I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. The imperative is categorical because it does not allow for any exceptions A maxim (as used here) is an implied general principle or rule understanding a particular action
Clarifying
Read middle of pg 16 steve
Principilism
Principlism is a system of ethics based on the four moral principles of: 1. Autonomy--free-will, ones capacity to be autonomous or self-determining
When someone is deprived of their autonomy, their plans are interfered with and they are not treated with the respect they deserve
2. Beneficencea positive duty, to do good, we should act in such a a way that we advance the welfare of other people when we are able to do so
When do we have such a duty to act?
1. the need is serious or urgent 2. we have knowledge or awareness of the situation, and 3. we have the capability to provide assistance (ought assumes can is the operative principle
Author comments, that this principle has some relevance when we evaluate societys questionable duty of beneficience to provide universal Internet service.
Prinicpilism Continued
3. Nonmaleficence--not to harm, and or, above all, do no harm 4. Justice follows a basic formal principle: Similar cases ought to be treated in similar ways.
Justice requires fair treatment and impartiality Determining similar cases leads to an underlying principle for how we should distribute the benefits and burdens of social life Leading to theories of distributive justice
all goods should be distributed equally; although John Rawls has argued that an unequal distribution of goods is acceptable when it works for the advantage of everyone especially the least advantaged (called the difference principle). Or, benefits or resources should be distributed according to the contribution each individual makes to the furtherance of societys goals Another, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Not choosing one over another, moral judgments should be based in part on the formal principle of justice.
Concluding Principilism
Advocates for principilism argue that from the beginning of recorded history most moral decision-makers descriptively and prescriptively have used these four moral principles; that they are part of or compatible with most intellectual, religious, and cultural beliefs.
End of Chapter
Hand out homework assignment