Morality in Cyberspace

The advent of the Internet has revived the age-old tension between the private and the public in the lives of Americans. This tension played out in a new medium has led to new ethical questions that pit private and public standards of morality against each other. This tension is centered on where you think the boundary between the private and the public in cyberspace lies, for often what you define as acceptable action in the private might not be acceptable in the public. In what sense are your actions on the Internet occurring in the private domain, and therefore subject to your definition of morality? Or in what ways are your actions really public, potentially harmful to others, and thus subject to public concepts of morality?

Here is what an expert at Notre Dame has to say about the tensions between private and public:

"Some commentators have argued, however, that the state action doctrine rests on the illusory hope that we can draw a clear and coherent line between what constitutes public as opposed to private behavior. Indeed, Supreme Court decisions about state action have been uncertain and often inconsistent. As scholars frequently have criticized the state action doctrine both as a matter of historical fidelity and public policy. On the other hand, just because a line is difficult to draw does not necessarily mean there should not be any line. And, as a practical matter, most of us experience a difference between public and private acts in our daily lives and therefore might find it counterintuitive to conflate the two."

Here are three different cases that lay out the debate between the Internet being private or public:

The ability to download music off the Internet is now commonplace. However, this practice is surrounded in moral controversy. How you feel about this issue depends on whether you see the Internet as a private space where you can share and interact with friends according to your personal standards of morality, or as a public domain where laws and public moral standards come into play.

For example, if the Internet is akin to a public domain, how is downloading music morally different from stealing a CD from a store? By downloading music aren’t you really depriving the musicians of the royalties they deserve for their creation?

However, If you see the Internet as a private area, then what is wrong with sharing what you have with your friends? Isn’t that what peer-to-peer software is? Is sharing music with friends over the Internet morally different from common actions such as copying a newspaper or magazine article and passing it along to a friend that might enjoy it?

The articles below may shed some light onto the morality of downloading music off the Internet, and provide you with the information you need to help you decide where you fall when it comes to sharing music over the Internet.

In Support of Downloading Music off the Internet

In Opposition to Downloading Music off the Internet

Free Music Philosophy : To allow for all individuals to experience the artistic benefits of music, it is necessary that all are able to access it equally.

Pay for your Music : Paying for the music you listen to is not restricting your liberty it is only a way to restrain the use so that the artist can be compensated.

Napster not Liable for Actions of Private Users: Napster may have created the software, but they say they cannot be responsible for how other people use it. What individuals do in their own homes, is a private act and Napster cannot be accountable for private actions.

Piracy Hurts Everyone : Not everything in life is or should be free of charge. If you don’t give what is due to the artists, then eventually the artists will cease to create.

Downloading Music Increases Sales: Studies show that making music available on-line actually increases the sale of music in the stores. You might actually be doing the musicians a favor by downloading music!

RIAA: The official site for the Recording Industry Association of America.

If you can’t access the RIAA’s website – here’s why!

Most people would agree that breaking into someone’s private home is immoral and not socially acceptable; however, for many the concept of hacking into someone’s computer is not seen as a bad thing by all. Is your computer and what is on it completely private even though you are connected to the Internet or a network? If your computer is private, should it and the information it possesses be accorded the same protection as your house or other material possessions? If the Internet is a public realm, does that mean that your computer and the information it transmits over the Internet should be considered public as well? If you see the Internet as a public realm, does this change how you view the morality of hacking? Does hacking have good purposes, such as forcing security measures to become increasingly better?

Defending the Hacker

The Hacker as a Thief

Hacking as a Form of Anti-War Protest: Incidents of hacking may be increasing, but is this a bad thing? Hackers in recent times have defaced government websites as a sign of protest against the war in Iraqi.

Akin to Stealing a Car: In a straight-forward argument, you can see how hacking into a computer/network is no different than stealing private property, such as a car.

The Hacking Contest and Russian Hacking Culture: Examples of how hackers can find the loopholes in the security systems of corporations. If this happens, then the corporations can fix the loopholes in order to make their systems more secure.

E-mail is quickly becoming the preferred form of communication – over the regular postal system that is. With this shift in communication styles, the ease of forwarding messages onto other people has become almost effortless. Do you view e-mail communication as a private or public matter? Is it ok to forward a personal e-mail letter onto others? Is an e-mail any different than a letter sent through the postal system? The plight of Laurie Garrett highlights this issue and its implications. Garrett, a reporter for Newsday, wrote an e-mail to her friends about her experiences at the World Economic Forum. In it she, in a very candid manner, describes opinions about the U.S and its relationship to other countries that she gleamed during the forum. The e-mail was then forwarded on by one her friends, who then forwarded it on, etc., etc. In the end her e-mail was posted all over the Internet, with her personal comments out there for all to read. Is what happened moral? You decide.