OXYMORON OR ORTHODOXY?
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Although I have a deep personal and professional interest in the Internet, I had never really thought of the Internet as an ethical issue until I was first contacted – by e-mail, of course – by Professor Marc Le Menestrel.
Marc is both Assistant Professor of Management at the University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Spain and visiting Professor of Business Ethics at the international business school of INSEAD [click here] at Fontainebleau, just outside Paris, France.
At the time that he first contacted me, Marc was in Singapore which is the newly-opened Asia campus of INSEAD. Together with his senior colleague Professor Henri-Claude de Bettignies, he was running a 16-session course with the intriguing title: "Individual, Business & Society: The Ethical Dilemma”. One of the sessions was called “Who should regulate the Internet?” and this session was focussed on a case study of the LICRA vs Yahoo! legal action in France.
Subsequently, I visited the main INSEAD campus at Fontainebleau, talked with Professors de Bettignies and Le Menestrel, and gave a videotaped interview of the Yahoo! case to Marc Le Menestrel and his American colleague Mark Hunter.
This exchange has led me to think much more about the issue of Internet ethics. Is it an oxymoron, like ‘military intelligence’ or ‘English cuisine’, or is it simply common sense and, in that sense, an orthodoxy?
This paper examines three related issues:
WHAT IS THE INTERNET?
It is essential to start with some understanding of the history and the nature of the Internet.
Where did it come from?
[For a much more detailed history of the Internet, see the Hobbes Internet Timeline click here]
What are the implications of this evolution for the ethics debate?
So much for the history of the Internet. What about the nature of the Internet? What range of services does it provide?
The main forms of content are:
The types of activities which are taking place on the Net can be analysed as follows:
What are the implications of this range of services for the ethics debate?
IS THERE A PLACE FOR ETHICS?
In considering whether there is a place for ethics on the Internet, we need to have understanding of what such a grand word as ‘ethics’ means in this context. I suggest that it means four things:
This means that the World Wide Web is not the wild wild Web, but instead a place where values in the broadest sense should take a part in shaping content and services. This is a recognition that the Internet is not something apart from civil society, but increasingly a fundamental component of it.
This means that we do not invent a new set of values for the Internet but, for all the practical problems, endeavour to apply the law which we have evolved for the physical space to the world of cyberspace. These laws might cover issues like child pornography, race hate, libel, copyright and consumer protection.
This means recognising that, while originally most Internet users were white, male Americans, now the Internet belongs to all. As a pervasively global phenomenon, it cannot be subject to one set of values like a local newspaper or national television station; somehow we have to accommodate a multiplicity of value systems.
This means recognising that users of the Internet – and even non-users – are entitled to have a view on how it works. At the technical level, this is well understood – bodies like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) end the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) endeavour to understand and reflect user views. However, at no level do we have similar mechanisms for capturing user opinions on content and access to it.
Now that we have a better understanding of what ethics means in the context of the Internet, we need to address the question: whose responsibility is ethics on the net? The answer is that responsibility should be widely spread.
In seeking to apply a sense of ethics to cyberspace, there are some major problems but also some useful solutions.
Among the problems are:
Laws are nation-based but cyberspace is global. How does one apply up to 170 separate and different legal systems to the Internet?
The Internet is a complex technical network and one cannot simply apply ‘old’ regulatory conventions from the worlds of publishing or broadcasting.
As many Internet-related companies have grown, there is now an internal tension between the old-timers, with their vast technical knowledge, and the new-comers who are more likely to be marketing people much more aware of consumer concerns.
The Internet is still so new and so mysterious for many that it is still relatively easy for a populist campaign to be whipped up which exaggerates the dangers of Internet content and/or minimises the technical complexities of dealing with it. We must be sensitive to consumer concerns, but the agenda cannot be determined by ill-informed politicians looking for votes or newspapers seeking to boost circulation.
Among the solutions are:
Governments need to consider whether pre-Internet laws need up-dating to take account of new crimes such as cyber stalking or grooming in chat rooms.
Law enforcement agencies need more people with greater technical training and resource to tackle increasingly sophisticated cyber criminals such as paedophile rings. One example is the recent creation of the National High Tech Crime Unit in the UK.
We need organisations to which Internet users can report allegedly criminal content in the confident knowledge that this hotline is equipped to judge the legality and identify the hosting of material so that, if it is illegal and if it is in their jurisdictional area, they can issue a notice to the relevant ISP to remove it. A good example of such an operation is the Internet Watch Foundation in the UK [click here].
We can best empower end users by greater labelling or rating of Internet content and greater use of more sophisticated filtering software. The Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA)[click here] has made considerable progress in developing and promoting a genuinely global, culturally independent labelling system. A wide range of companies provide filtering software which operates on different principles. In this way, households can make their own decisions based on their own cultural or ethical values. [For a fuller discussion of rating and filtering click here.]
For young children or as a transitional stage to full Internet access, one could use a ‘walled garden’ which restricts access to those sites pre-selected by a particular provider, typically with a child-friendly brand.
All those with responsibility for children – especially parents, guardians, teachers and carers– need to become better aware of some of the problems of Internet use by children and the range of solutions which are available. They cannot rely, though, on technical solutions – regular conversation with, and observation of, the child is essential.
So, how will all this come about?
THE YAHOO! CASE STUDY
An excellent case study on Internet ethics – and one being developed by INSEAD in Fontainebleau – is the French legal case against the American company Yahoo! [click here].
What are the basic facts of the case?
[For much more detail on the Yahoo! case click here and click here].
What issues are raised by the Yahoo! case?
At this stage, I prefer simply to pose these questions rather than attempt to answer them. However, I would offer some personal views on some of the lessons that could be drawn from the Yahoo! case.
The French understandably are acutely sensitive to issues concerning the Holocaust – it happened on European soil and was visited upon Europeans by Europeans – whereas, not withstanding the strong Jewish lobby in the United States, Americans appear less offended by the sale of Nazi memorabilia. Another cultural difference involves the trial itself: whereas it was comprehensively reported in the French media, the British and America media appeared to view it as a strangely Gallic affair that merited less attention.
Obviously, courts are legalistic, but they are also confrontational and costly. We need cheaper, faster, more flexible means of resolving Internet problems. Yahoo! would have saved itself a lot of trouble and opprobrium if it has engaged in a meaningful dialogue with LICRA and LICRA should have given the company more time to develop such a dialogue.
Yahoo! opposed a demand by the court that it block access by French users to parts of its action site and yet, only months later, voluntarily decided that no-one in the world should have access because the offending items are no longer for sale. Undoubtedly, it was the views of Yahoo! users around the globe that persuaded the company to make such a policy reversal or volte face.
Yahoo! told the French court that it was technically impossible to block French users from parts of its American site, but a technical panel appointed by the court argued that such geolocation blocking was possible. Yahoo! was originally ‘happy’ to see anyone auction anything on its site free of charge, but now it has a much more restrictive policy and a pricing requirement.
Commercial companies – especially new companies operating in very fast-changing and competitive environments – do not like people to query their methods of operation and are often very resistant to proposals that, at least at first sight, would appear to complicate further their already complicated lives. But the Yahoo! case has shown that, when companies engage with a problem, they can find a solution.
CONCLUSIONS
Some final thoughts about the Internet and ethics:
FURTHER READING
"Internet E-Ethics In Confrontation With An Activists' Agenda: Yahoo! On Trial" by Marc Le Menestrel, Mark Hunter & Henri-Claude de Bettignes click here and go through 'research' and 'working papers' to check working paper 577
Case analysis by Yaman Akdeniz of University of Leeds in UK click here
Briefs and rulings in the US case:
click here
ROGER DARLINGTON
Last modified on 23 September 2002
"This is not a battle between good and evil"