Violating the Copyright of Intellectual Property

Educators report that they are having difficulty instilling respect for the copyrights on intellectual property. The statistics confirm their concerns. It is estimated that for every legitimate copy of a software package there are two pirated versions installed on other PCs. In some countries, virtually all software is counterfeit. The original developers receive no royalties for sales and legitimate customers must pay artificially high prices.

Discussion:

The capabilities for copying CDs, CD-ROMs, and DVDs are now commonplace in the home and office. People routinely use these capabilities to duplicate copyrighted music and software for friends and, occasionally, for corporate use. If you knew of someone who routinely violated copyright laws, would you report him or her? Why or why not?

Discussion:

Your boss asked you to install your graphics program on three other PCs in the office. The license permits only one installation. What would be your response to your boss's request?

Discussion:

A neighbor of yours who lives paycheck to paycheck has asked if he can borrow your copy of Quicken (financial management software). He installs the software on his computer and returns the Quicken CD-ROM to you within an hour. Was anyone guilty of violating copyright laws? Explain.

Discussion:

How would you respond to a teenager arrested for shoplifting who downplayed the crime saying, "Everybody does it and nobody ever gets caught"? How would you respond to a manager charged with duplicating copyrighted software who downplayed the incident saying, "Everybody does it and nobody ever gets caught"?

Discussion:

What can each of us do to help guard against the pirating of copyrighted software?

Scanning for Shoplifters

A high-tech surveillance technology that has been used in the past to trap pedophiles, terrorists, and, at European soccer games, hooligans, is being employed by some retailers to identify shoplifters. The face-recognition technology matches a digital facial scan against a database of known shoplifters. The technology can scan people's faces within a crowd using 80 facial features and identify people with 99% accuracy. There are, of course, concerns about invasion of personal privacy; however, individual scans are deleted after they had been matched against the database. Also, this technology offers great promise for apprehending criminals; the governments of many countries are using it or evaluating it.

Discussion:

Do you consider this application of face-recognition technology an invasion of privacy? If so, do the benefits justify the means?

Discussion:

Identify and describe at least two other applications (not mentioned above) for face-recognition technology.

Moral Filtering of Internet Content

There has been considerable debate in the cyber community among organizations that set policy for the Internet about whether these organizations should provide some level of moral filtering of Web site content and applications. For example, one site published the names of British Intelligence agents, thus putting their lives at risk. Another lists doctors who perform abortions, then crosses them off as they are killed. Then, of course, there is the issue of easily accessible pornography, which currently comprises 1.5% of Internet content.

Discussion:

What role, if any, should be played by Internet policy-making organizations regarding the assessment of the Internet content and applications?

Discussion:

If possible, should cooperative international legislation be enacted to better control access to pornographic content on the Internet?

Prescreening of Online Communications

Millions of people have access to and participate in newsgroups, chat rooms, and online forums. Some sponsors and information services feel obligated to give their subscribers an environment that is free of offensive language. These organizations use an electronic scanner to "read" each message before it is posted to a newsgroup or forum. In a split second, the scanner flags those words and phrases that do not comply with the information service's guidelines. The scanner even catches words or phrases that may be disguised with asterisks and so on. Generally, the guidelines are compatible with accepted norms in a moral society. These include the use of grossly repugnant material, obscene material, solicitations, and threats. The scanner also scans for text that may be inappropriate for a public discussion, such as the use of pseudonyms, attempts at trading, presentation of illegal material, and even speaking in foreign languages. Messages that do not pass the prescreening process are returned automatically to the sender.

Some might cry that their rights to freedom of expression are violated. This, of course, is a matter that may ultimately be decided in a court of law. In the meantime, those who wish a more open discussion have plenty of opportunities. On most international newsgroups and information services, anything goes.

Discussion:

Is prescreening of electronic communications a violation of freedom of expression?

Discussion:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of prescreening online communications from the user's perspective? From the perspective of the organization doing the prescreening?

Inappropriate Use of the Internet at Work

Internet usage monitoring at the workplace has revealed what many workers already know, at least some of the Internet surfing is not job related (more than half at the U.S. Internal Revenue Service). Most of this surfing is treated much like nonbusiness telephone calls, such as a call home or to confirm a doctor's appointment. However, management is getting involved when abuse is extensive or "inappropriate" material is viewed or downloaded on company PCs. Although corporate policy on such actions may be nonexistent or unclear, some people are losing their jobs.

Discussion:

What would be appropriate punishment, if any, for an employee who, against company policy, downloaded and kept "inappropriate" material on his or her PC?

Discussion:

What punishment is appropriate for an employee who abuses his or her Internet connection by doing non-job-related surfing at least one hour per day?