Tag Archives: Ethics

Social Networking Sites.

Posted on by

Ah, the glorious world of social networking sites (SNSs) where my photos are always artsy, my family is always happy, and all the people I know are my friends who truly care about what is going on in my life. Right?! Following the thoughts of the mental chasm between real life and online world, SNSs allow people to connect, offering a filtered and limited amount of information to others. Such sites encourage “connectedness”, even if it fosters superficial relations between people who depict themselves as a very partial fragment of who they really are.

It would be hard to defend, from a deontological perspective, the idea that SNSs are wrong in and of themselves. Such sites are simply a virtual setting for socializing. The interactions and conversations that take place, however, can be seen as absolute negatives under certain viewpoints.

image source: http://faqsocial.org/

I will not expand on the topic of companies examining applicants since I have already discussed it in a previous post. It should be noted, though, that it is a major ethical concern in the use of SNSs.

Focusing on the misleading overexposure a person may submit themselves to when they use Facebook, a utilitarian analysis would contrast the costs of unwanted attention, permanence of regretful decisions, and effect on real life relations against the benefits of connectedness, entertainment, and the possible confidence boost obtained from online reaction (don’t we all feel special when we have 18 “likes” under a status update?). However, a deontological approach may take two positions here. As far as freedom of expression is a value to be upheld, SNSs provide a person with a setting to speak up relatively free, and for that reason a person should make use of such possibility as they please. On the other hand, highlighting respect and privacy, a user would be advised by a deontological ethicists to carefully craft their online interactions as a direct expression of themselves that is given to others to use at their discretion. And, at the same time, each user should understand that the information they receive from others must be handled with the same level of care they wish others devoted to their information. In a tangible example, I should not go stalking others, or sharing my friend’s photo if I did not like them doing the same with my photos.

A look at Walmart.com’s privacy policy.

Posted on by

After reviewing Walmart’s Privacy Policy (PP), I have to say I was not particularly surprised of its content. Of course, I had just read Charles Ess’ and Spinello’s take on privacy policy. However, I was surprised to read that Walmart may be obtaining information about me from other sources. The explanation of what sources they use is rather vague. It includes “entities that can help us correct or supplement our records, improve the quality or personalization of our service to you, and help prevent or detect fraud”. Out of those three, I only find the third one truly acceptable. The first two (have accurate information and give me the best possible service) should be done only according to the information I am willing to provide.

Image source: http://tinyurl.com/95pqf6f

In regards to the information Walmart obtains, there is nothing in the list I have not given them myself at one point or another. However, I was surprised to find out Walmart uses web beacons.

The site justifies their privacy policy based on their business function. Examples include “order or service fulfillment, internal business processes, marketing, authentication, loss and fraud prevention, public safety and legal functions.” We could say that three (the last three) of these seven elements could be deontologically defended. Most people find fraud prevention, safety, and compliance to the law to be worthy reasons to sacrifice a certain level of privacy. The others have a business purpose, and therefore are acceptable in a utilitarian perspectives as their benefits are more than their costs.However, as Ess explains, one of the problems with digital information is that it is greased. It moves easily and fast through channels of communication. Walmart’s PP proudly says that the company “does not sell or rent … personal information to third parties”, and then goes on to list four paragraphs of exceptions. Oh well.

The site also explains under what circumstances they use and opt-in or opt-out approach when it comes to using saved information.

Looking at the big picture, I do feel comfortable with Walmart’s privacy policy. I hope they will not prove me wrong. However, if I chose to not engage in e-commerce with them, I feel like my option is to go to a similar retailer or service provider whose privacy policy is probably going to run along the same ethical lines.

New ethics?

Posted on by

Both the transitory and high context nature of face-to-face communication are some of the features that contrast clearly with the characteristics of digital media.

As we speak to another person, our face, voice, and general physical posture aides the receiver interpret the message. On the other hand, digital written communication must be very clear and unequivocal if we intend to avoid all possible misunderstanding. In other words, sarcasm is not as effective when you text.

However, as digital technology advances, some of the differences decrease in magnitude. Twenty five years ago, the only way to communicate digitally was email. Nowadays, almost any person may be able to communicate with somebody else through video calls that carry much more paralanguage than an email.

Face-to-face conversations, assuming the message is not being recorded, are there one second and gone the next. We all have heard in one of our favorite lawyer shows the phrase “that’s hearsay”. That means that you are simply repeating what you heard someone else say, and you may even be making it up. You can’t prove they said it. Communication through digital media is not so fleeting. An email sent from one individual to another, may certainly be stored in servers, intentionally forwarded or accidentally printed. In any of those cases, a message that was intended for one person may reach hundreds or thousands more. I am sure Congressman Weiner is aware of such truth now.

Conversely, digital media affords a level of anonymity that may turn dangerous. Even though digital communication can be easily recorded and presented to an unexpected audience, the sender of such message has many ways to disguise his or her true identity. We have seen a clear example of this characteristic used for a good cause in shows such as To Catch a Predator. But in reality, the anonymity of digital media is often used for not so noble causes. In fact, online technology is a common tool in the horrific practice of human trafficking. Anonymity may also be used to exercise one’s right of free speech while protecting ones privacy.

After all this differentiating of digital and face-to-face communication, what is left to say about the details of analog and digital media? After reading Ess’ description of the two, I imagined digital media as a type of analog media on steroids. Basically, digital media is more faithful to the original content (be it a photo, a song, or a document) and allows for it to be carried in many different devices (you can upload a word document to your camera’s memory card or put a photo on a USB flash drive). Finally, as convergence increases you find yourself with a crazy expensive gadget that can read, reproduce, and create a myriad of information. Are you looking at one right now?

Moving on from the description of digital media I ask myself, what new ethical challenges have I faced as I interact more and more through digital media. And, are these challenges able to be resolved from my ethical framework formed before involvement with digital media? Well, that’s difficult to answer primarily because I do not recall having a pre-digital ethical development. Not that my moral standards are set in stone now, but I was not an adult by the time I was communicating through cell phones, emails, and chat sessions. However, I have never separated in my head the ethics of my non-digital and digital life. Lying (let’s start with a big one) is wrong whether it’s face to face or in text message. So is flirting with anyone other than my husband. What about being rude? I will admit it is easier to be rude online. However, I can say that I do not find it more justifiable. The ethical standard doesn’t change. The application becomes trickier. That is from an individualistic point of view; I am just examining myself.

But Ess, in Digital Media Ethics, considers also the global nature of digital communications. As the internet and other advances in telecommunications minimize the impact of distance around the world, we need to find a basic common ground among cultures that are radically different. Monism proposes a rigid set that seems to develop from a totalitarian attitude. Ethical relativism is strongly rejected by groups that assert at least some universal values, and the likelihood is that most people hold something they believe in as non-negotiable. Pluralism, somewhat Utopian in my view, tries to find the common ground of as many views as possible to reach a consensus and grow from there. It sounds almost like ethical democracy, don’t you think? If we can get most people to agree, even a significant majority, then we must have something valid. In light of the options, I would agree this is the best starting point. Ess, I believe, would push further to get us to think that we don’t have to choose one, but acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each view, consider it all and hold on to the good things.

In fewer words, there is certainly a correlation between ethical frames pre-digital media that are valid and useful for validating behavior in the digital era. However, as we encounter new situations that do not translate directly into our existing set of ethical statutes, an evolution of ethics is imperative and basically inevitable.