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.