A paranoid boss, an overzealous legislator, an overbearing parent, and a cuckold all walk into a bar. They say 'ow.'

Computers are used in a wide range of purposes by a wide range of people. And, wherever there are people, there are paranoid people. The shady private eye has given way to personal use spyware, which is both inexpensive and easy to install. This technology means that anyone’s Internet activity could be monitored by anyone else. I’ll be focusing on technology used without malicious intent, and on the ethical implications of such monitoring.
The technology varies, but some commonly used pieces of software are keystroke loggers and software that records Internet history. A popular brand is Spector. The programs used in this possibly well intentioned endeavor are the same as those used for malicious hacking, but people wishing to spy on those they know have the advantage of being able to directly install hardware.
In workplaces, managers increasingly concerned both with productivity and liability for sexual harassment have stepped up the amount to which they monitor employees. In addition to classic overbearing CCTVs, large companies have begun installing spyware on their networks to monitor their employees’ use of company computers. In some instances, employees with disagreeable material in their hard drives or inappropriate emails have been disciplined or fired.
Originally in the name of fighting terrorism, US and Canadian governments have increased the amount of monitoring they do online. This has further extended into fighting sexual and financial crimes. The United States government has asked Internet firms to save data of its users for up to two years after its use. The Canadian government recently ordered Bell to monitor and turn over information it considered relevant to law enforcement (see Youtube video). And, in addition to attempts by the US government to catch sex offenders online, it has created an online sex offender registry, allowing, extremely easily, average citizens to monitor each other.
In the home, parents are installing, in addition to more traditional internet blocks, software to monitor the internet use of their children. Spouses suspicious in Internet infidelities have a plethora of resources at their disposal to spy on each other, from software focusing largely on monitoring chatroom activity to software that takes screenshots and records email and keystrokes. Also, websites have arisen for the sole purpose of catching cheaters online.
All of those employing this technology think they’re doing what is right and necessary. The government would be able to stop more crime if given access to records. Sexual harassment would fall if employees knew they might be caught. Children would be safer online, and spouses would have reduced temptation to cheat. Does that make it right?

I enjoyed this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VcP3V9bgUoI


Where should the line be drawn as to what kind and scope of internet monitoring is acceptable?

The intentions of office managers, law enforcers, parents, and cuckolded spouses are, at least in their own minds, noble. What ethical similarities are there between these types of monitors and those who illegally install spyware meant for gathering personal information for purposes of theft?

Can someone lend me a cable to connect my Mac to the projector?

Scientology's Secrets

The article "Scientology's Secrets" described ex-members of the Church of Scientology printing online the closely guarded secrets of the religion, glorious tales of aliens and kidnapping and taking schizophrenics off of their medication... although that last bit is a tad more reliable. When the Church of Scientology sued the ex-members to cease distributing what they called 'trade secrets,' the ex-members claimed protection under the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and the CoS claimed freedom of religion.

When I was doing research for my paper, the phrase that kept coming up in most of the books I used was, information wants to be free. Any attempts to keep information closed off will be, and have been, met with fierce opposition and impossible obstacles. Scientology is not a group of Hari Krishna style harmless weirdos. It is a dangerous cult with strong legal and psychological control over its members. It is impossible to keep secrets on such a large scale with all the available media for its spread. Information wants to be free, and a religion that depends on keeping that from happening is doomed.

Youtube and Punk Kids

I've been seeing a lot in the news lately media corporations suing Youtube for copyright infringements, users uploading copyrighted material and distributing it. I've watched music videos and entire episodes of shows on Youtube, and I know that thousands of users violate copyright laws unbeknownst to Youtube. I wonder where the responsibility lies. The current law is that, if when Youtube finds the copyrighted material, it deletes it, it isn’t liable, but corporations such as Viacom and Fox are suing Youtube for the presence of their material on the site. So, the responsibility falls entirely with the companies who have material on the site to find it and notify Youtube. Though I definitely benefit from having illegally uploaded material on Youtube, from a strictly legal perspective, more liability should definitely fall with the person uploading the material.

The Heart of the WELL

This article made me question the effect of online relationships. The relationships he forms are clearly beneficial in some ways- he genuinely cares about the plight of a Himalayan nun, and he gets medical advice to help his daughter faster than he ever could through traditional means- and it would seem that he really comes to appreciate the WELL as a separate community. But does this mean that his other relationships were hurt in the process? When he finds help from the doctor in the WELL, did that set up a pattern where most medical interaction occurs online? When he’s looking for advice on whether or not to let his daughter get a piercing, would he go first to his friends or to strangers on the Internet? Or are they even different? When my cousins first had kids, they wouldn’t talk about anything but every small detail of child rearing. They were heart breakingly boring. Eventually, however, they found some new topics because we were all disinterested in talking to them and the human drive for interaction mandated they find a new way to relate. This forum is all about childrearing, a topic that many parents are too comfortable having as their only subject of conversation. Online, people, or rather, geeks, can find other people who are willing to talk about the thing they want to talk about the most. I wonder if this will make us less willing to seek out live-flesh friendships with people among whom the conversation is less assured.

Serendipity is for Suckers

Those familiar with the website Craig’s list undoubtedly love it. Users post ads or requests for all things, from old furniture to jobs. It’s convenient and large enough that it serves a real purpose. However, my favorite part of the site is not the things for sale or the available job listings. It’s what they call the ‘missed connections.’ Kind of like a personal ad, it allows users to post messages for specific people they have no other way of contacting- usually people they met at parties or on elevators. While most are of the “I almost hit you in my car you’re hot let’s have sex” variety, occasionally one crops up that makes me change the way I look at the strangers around me. These are people I see every day. Two strangers on opposite sides of the elevator are falling in love. A woman has a conversation with a man on the metro and thinks about him for the next week. A man is actively considering infidelity with a woman who’s never noticed him. A pretty barista desperately yearns to tell off the jerk who hits on her. Like Postsecret, it gives me insight into lives that have nothing to do with me. I’m wondering now if the Internet has made people think differently of everyday interactions such as this, if the possibility to find the friendly stranger later makes these encounters less random. However, I also wonder if that same sense of opportunity has lessened people’s appreciation for the wonderful meaningless moments that usually fill our days.

A Rape in Cyberspace

Obvious disturbed feelings aside, this article brought up some interesting questions on cyberspace law. Mr. Bungle is obviously morally at fault for his actions in the chat room, but what are the legal ramifications of his “rape?” Dibbel points out that rape is, essentially, a mental crime, and the motivations and effects of this rape, if not to the extent of a real rape, were at least along the same lines. Of course, I’m not suggesting that Mr. Bungle be held to the same laws as someone who has committed a real rape. But in California, where the server is, obscene phone calls are a crime, and that is basically what took place. From the nature of the incident- just words, but very disturbing words- to the physical reality of the incident- along phone lines- it was in every way an obscene phone call. Of course, the wishes of the people on the MOO seemed to be that the matter be kept in the MOO. But what should be the law in such matters? Even though the event is unquestionably harmful and damaging to those affected, and though it pains me to say it, I really feel that instances of harassment such as this are just a part of life. You can’t arrest someone for staring inappropriately, or for catcalling, and this seems to be a more extreme version of those things. This is just a disturbing part of life that every person eventually has to learn to deal with, and the law can’t be involved.

Keep your pants on until you're ready and in love, Demonboy

Barbara Ehrenreich tells a humorous tale of a near cybersex experience with a fourteen year old boy. Yes, haha, pedophilia sure is a hoot. But between Demonboy’s requests to undress and thigh licking, a disturbing thought comes to mind. Though Ehrenreich rolled her eyes and chalked up his odd sexual proclivities to youth, plenty of otherwise normal adults would be aroused, both by his aggression and his age. For every one person whose skin crawls at the thought of fourteen year olds being sexual, there are plenty who seek it. And the anonymity of things like chatrooms means that teenagers can pretend to be adults, and vice versa. When my family first got AOL, I remember my sister and I creating fake names and ages- and, as many from my generation can attest to, I was awashed in the various sexual solicitation each of those fake identities warranted. I was, without question, a child. But, after enough time exploring chatrooms, I learned enough from disturbing messages to act much older. Enter Demonboy, whose decidedly conservative conversation showed plenty about his internet background. A fourteen year old boy knows as much about foreplay as a large fish. I’m sure Demonboy learned thigh licking from someone much older, and probably much more experienced. It makes me wonder- how has the internet and the availability of conversation with sexually mature adults caused young teenagers to become sexually aware younger?

You make me feel mildly androgynous

Requisite feelings of invaded femininity from Jesse Kornbluth’s article aside, “You Make Me Feel Like a Virtual Woman,” raised in my mind some serious questions about gender self-identity, at least as far as the internet is concerned. Kornbluth initially entered all women chat rooms, searching for insight into female thought and enjoying his farce. But his apparent comfort in the world of womanhood can’t have left him without a few doubts. He jumps at the chance to join his sister in messing with the head of the big, dumb, perverted man- and it’s not about sex, or journalism, or trickery, he’s just sharing a joke with a fellow woman. And his cybersex (sidenote- all the lesbian cybersex I’ve ever heard tell of has involved at least one man- I would readily accept that most lesbian cybersex has taken place between two men.) involves him acting as a woman- contrary to what many men would like to believe, men cannot have lesbian sex. He is having sex as a woman, adopting imaginary body parts and even making himself sexually submissive. He tells the evil man that women like a little romance in their sex. And, of course, to him it’s all just a game. But, in this context, he self-identifies as a woman. Any psychologist will tell you that gender is entirely about self perception- if Kornbluth acts like and calls himself a woman, does that mean that, in the context of those chatrooms, he is? What defines gender on the internet?

Vashti as a teenage girl

First semester freshman year, homesick and lonely, I was infinitely grateful to be able to easily keep in touch with my friends from home. However, I soon found that, after hours of conversation, I had neither said anything nor furthered my friendships. E.M. Forster’s “The Airship,” written in 1909, describes with disturbing insight one aspect of modern human relationships. His depiction of long distance relationships devoid of physical contact are an unpleasant parallel to one of the primary methods of communication in our generation- instant messaging.
A growing group of my friends refuse to use instant messaging. They feel that the conversations are so unsatisfying that they would rather wait to have conversations in person. And I’m beginning to see their point. One of the greatest parallels between the story and actual IMs is the nuances- or, the lack thereof. The grainy machine in Forster’s story can’t show the small facial expressions, or capture the subtlety of inflection that make up more of the conversation than the words themselves. The knowing winks and affectionate touching that normally comprise all the affection and meaning of a real human conversation are replaced with :). I find this a less than ideal substitute.
Also parallel was the idea of refusing to have just one conversation. Vashti hesitated even to restrict herself to a conversation with her son. The multi-tasking, or more realistically, fragmented, abilities of my generation cause us to have upwards of five or six conversations at once- but how compelling can any of those conversations be if we’re talking about seven different topics in seven different tones and waiting for seven responses. No witticisms, no inside jokes, no illuminating expressions, no infinite loops of giggling, can possibly come from this method of communication.
The dystopian coldness of interaction in “The Airship,” having shown increasing popularity in the real world, warns us of a probable outcome of increasing reliance on IMs. Constant use of a method of communication so fundamentally unsatisfying can only result in damaged relationships. I, for one, am starting to prefer loneliness.

What are the benefits of IMs, and what are its drawbacks?

How can we prevent ourselves from becoming Vashti?

Who chooses fake furries over actual sex?

In “Identity in the Age of the Internet,” “Doug” is a college aged man with multiple online identities. The one that stood out to me was the furry. Perhaps I’m a bit biased; furries freak me out more than I care to say (for those who don’t know what a furry is… some people like anthropomorphic cartoon-type animals… really like them). But the idea of this MUD, especially Doug’s role in it, seems fundamentally disturbing to me. Doug says that he doesn’t say a whole lot- he mostly watches, and he feels like he’s a “sexual tourist” (actual sexual tourists are people, often pedophiles, who travel abroad for inexpensive and exotic sex trades, but that’s beside the point). This is so many levels removed from actual sex with another human being that I’m afraid for the species. If people can find such isolating sexual practices arousing, what hope is there for breeding? Yes, sure, natural selection has always targeted gamers (you can either give your kids a talk on safe sex or a D&D manual), but I genuinely worry about a culture that chooses pretend pretend sex over the pursuit of real sex. And this isolation is reflected in all relationships, not just sex. Most people have at least a few friendships that are exclusively online, sometimes even with people they’ve never met. Doug is in no way exceptional. He reflects what appears to me to be a trend towards cold, alienating computer relationships over genuine human connections.

In what ways have computers damaged the quality of human interaction?

What is human?

In “What’s It Mean to Be Human, Anyway?,” Charles Platt describes the Alan Turring’s idea that if a computer can successfully imitate a human being during what basically amounts to a conversation, it should be practically considered a human. This, of course, was in 1950 and, judging by old episodes of The Twilight Zone, people were a bit more hopeful about the capabilities of computers back then. And, of course, no computer has come close to matching the human characteristics of Asimov’s Multivac. However, in an apparent attempt to encourage humanistic robot technology, Hugh Loebner, of inflatable disco floor fame, began hosting a competition for programmers to make their machines imitate humans. (Maybe he wants a technological utopia, maybe he wants sexbots. No one knows for sure.)
The participants seemed to have a common strategy: have enough preprogrammed responses to prepare for every potential question. No analysis, no thought, just a set answer based on a few textual cues. I wouldn’t quite call that imitating human life. And many of the critics of Loebner’s contest agree with me. A researcher mentioned in the article claimed his contest favored cheap tricks over the development of real artificial intelligence.
It would appear that the Turring test is flawed; these machines don’t imitate anything. They just spit out answers to what their programmers thought were likely questions. Important to note is that the winner wasn’t designed for this competition at all; it was meant to be an encyclopedia style computer for dispensing sex advice to shy Canadians. That’s all these machines are- user-friendly encyclopedias. They don’t imitate life, they store and dispense our knowledge. We’ve all, at least once, said “excuse me” after bumping into a store mannequin. We get confused and think it’s a human. It tricks us. Would we ever suggest that, for all practical purposes, we consider it to be a human being? Similarly, would anyone for a minute suggest that someone severely catatonic is not a human being?

If the Turring test is a flawed way to determine whether or not a computer is worthy of consideration as a human being, by what method can we determine the humanness of a computer? For that matter, what do we use to determine the humanness of a human?