2010

Digital Ethics in the Real World

One evening in May while my wife was cooking supper, the ever-present National Public Radio played a piece about Facebook, privacy, and user anger at how transparent ostensibly private information can be. That kind of story drifts through the kitchen morning and night. But this one was different, because it offered a direct connection to a “social network” I did not know I had.

Because I teach at a giant state university, Facebook has always been an issue for me. I have been told not to have a page or to “friend” my students. And, although I have done just that until recently, I have had no complications. To the contrary, I get a lot of positive feedback about my work in class here and elsewhere. But there is no trusting the unregulated world of Internet-based commentary.

Once on the site ratemyprofessor.com—where I get about two postings a year from 500 students—someone posted a purely pornographic description of just how thrilling my lectures can be. (Think of Meg Ryan’s diner scene in “When Harry Met Sally,” but uncensored.) This could have been funny, I guess, if my stepmother had not been the one to point it out to me from New Orleans, and if her friend across the country whom I don’t know hadn’t pointed it out to her. But it wasn’t funny. Caught in front of students who are texting in class and using social media as if it were the phone, professors are vulnerable like never before. And what gets said matters, somehow. So, I had the ratemyprofessor.com Internet master take this blue ode down an hour later.

When the NPR reporter described a Internet site called “youropenbook.org” as a way to search Facebook without belonging to Facebook, I was interested. (Actually, what the youropenbook.org Internet site says is, “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life. Whether you want to or not.”) A tool for transparency.

So, I was interested. As it happened, I had recently decommissioned my own Facebook page as a result of my own ambivalence about social media. Although the radio story was about user anger at Facebook’s failure to ensure users’ privacy, it gave me an immediate way to see what was being said about me on the biggest social media site.

So, I walked over to the laptop on the dining table, dialed up youropenbook.org and searched my name. (I was still holding up my end of a conversation from the kitchen.) Once on the site, I got 14 hits, most of which referred to my first and last names separately. They were not about me.

But one hit, which was listed as having been posted in my town a week earlier reported that another professor had “raped” the writer that Spring semester, while I and a third faculty member waited to “join in.” That was all. No explanation. No hint that it was false. I knew one of the others named, a mild-mannered woman on the communication studies faculty, but not the third. The writer’s name was listed, as well. So much for Facebook’s promises of privacy.

Let me say that I understood this language to be false, perhaps metaphorical. I did not hurt anyone. Instead, I guessed that the kid who had written that had been in my large lecture. But I didn’t know; I get to know very few of the students in this class.

My first fear was that this posting would be permanent, that my name and the word, “rape,” would become inscribed in the permanent record that is the Internet. What would happen to my next job search? Or to an award nomination? Or to my Internet-savvy stepmother?

I thought about what to do and realized that because the Internet offers a kind of organized chaos, I should jump in. So, I Googled the writer’s name. I found all of his Twitter postings, which reflected a steady set of “tweets” to get his friends out to the bars. (My university leads the nation with a 75 percent binge drinking rate. The norm is 50.) I found a picture of him. And the next day at the office, I pulled his transcript and confirmed that he had been in my class. I had never seen him in office hours or anywhere else.

But I was getting to know this guy really quickly. The composite I was able to put together showed a young guy who had started at the U with an A average in his first semester only to wipe out with poor grades and a withdrawal in the most recent semester.

For years I have been on two University committees devoted to moderating the hellacious drinking rate on our campus. Along with other, minor contributing factors, drinking contributes to a nearly 20 percent attrition rate among our freshman classes. And in spite of our efforts to moderate the local problem — several dozen bars admit 19-year olds in our small downtown area — alcohol-related arrests rose 53 percent last semester.

But apart from the demographic analysis, which is the high-altitude picture reserved for university committees, what do you do with the individual? With this guy? In this rare case, the “social network” of the Internet had intersected our local “social network.” In all candor, I was surprised to be so upset by the on-line behavior of one among the thousands on campus who were equally able to do the same thing.

And that is the place where having an ethical position became really important. My working definition of ethics has always been that all people in a situation should have the same access to the rules. Power relationships necessarily change that ideal, as in this case. So, instead, of “reaching out” to him myself, I e-mailed the Sr. Vice-President of Student Affairs, who referred me to the Dean of Students. Because I have been on the alcohol committees mentioned here with each of them, I felt safe in contacting them.

Within about two days, the student had been contacted by the Dean of Students, who had arranged an interview for him with the University’s sexual assault counselor. The casual use of the word, “rape,” points to another violent undercurrent on campus (on all campuses), one that is implicitly linked to risky drinking. I was gratified that the administration took his words seriously. And that they applied what I thought of as an ethical posture by requiring him to learn about the “rules” we have here for the use of language. The Dean had made him take the offending posting down, solving the permanence issue. (I checked the same way I had first found it.)

When the Dean contacted me, I told him that I wanted an apology for myself and for the other two professors. He said that he could not require that of the student, but that he would mention it. About a month later, the student wrote to apologize. He seemed contrite. And a little confused, but given his experience on campus, he probably was. In my reply, I assured him that I accepted his apology, that I had made my share of mistakes.

But here was another ethical juncture: He had failed out of the pre-requisites for my department’s major, my class included, and I am in charge of admissions to the major. I needed to make this situation better than before. So, I invited him to come to see me to go over the ways he could re-take my class for a better grade (a university policy), learn to study, and succeed. But in the interest of “transparency,” I told him that I had seen his Twitter postings, his Facebook page, his grade in my class, his transcript, and that he would have to spend less time in the bars and more at his desk to turn things around. I wanted to turn the lights on in the purest sense of ethics: I wanted him to know what I knew, and I was open to learning something from him.

I haven’t heard back. This new media environment does not come with a guide to ethical practices. Or unintended consequences. This experience with visibility on the Internet — someone else’s and mine — had the unexpected effect of putting a face on the numbers we deal with administratively. I’m still trying to decide about the nature of ethical relationships on the Internet. With some exceptions, the Internet has become too naturalized to be without unintended consequences. In brief, I don’t believe that my students have the wherewithal to do better than this. For now, I will continue to check to see how my name is being used.

Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess

Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess Polity Press | 2009

Polity Press's "Digital Media and Society Series" aims to explore how new technologies are fundamentally changing the ways we communicate. Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess does just that.

Ess's fairly unique approach is to apply a particular ethical construct to bound discussion of concepts around certain sticky examples described in each chapter. Each chapter includes a chapter overview, a case study, discussion questions, and prompts for writing and reflection exercises. Ess's first five chapters offers a range of ethical issues that can be tied esily to other concepts in communication and media studies. The book concludes with a useful reference chapter that describes each of the ethical frameworks applied in the chapters more thoroughly.

The result is a text that caters to several audiences. Current examples and discussion bounded by particularly fitting ethical constructs make this text accessible to students encountering concepts in digital media and ethics for the first time. The same holds true for a scholarly audience who may be exploring concepts in digital media for the first time. For instructors, this book is a thorough resource to mine for discussion topics, discussion questions, suggested readings, writing prompts, and examples.

Ess begins by outlining central issues, and in subsequent chapters covers privacy, intellectual property, citizenship, and pornography and gaming. Each chapter offers specific timely examples paired with a particularly fitting ethical construct. For example, Ess pairs discussions of pornography online with feminist ethics and virtue ethics; he pairs a discussion of cultural attitudes about privacy with ethical pluralism. Ess provides a solid foundational discussion of privacy and copyright - two of the more prominent critical issues in cyberethics.

In addition to these foundations, Ess also provides background on digital behavior and digital culture. He shows how discussions of digital behavior and culture are central to digital media ethics, and not just a side note in ethics applied online.

The writing and reflection prompts are particularly useful for students and instructors as discussions of ethics in the classroom can quickly devolve into opinion and relativism. Each chapter includes questions and assignment prompts that delve deeper into the topic at hand, and asks for some application of concepts from media studies to guide student discussion. They require critical reflection on consequences.

For those not teaching the topic, Digital Media Studies provides an excellent background on some of the most pressing issues in digital media. All too often, digital media skeptics set aside discussion of digital behavior and digital culture to simply apply offline ethics online. Ess gives these readers an introduction to critical issues online, and guides them in some basic concepts to address those critical issues fully.

Open configuration options

Oh No. I’m on Google!

Have you ever Googled yourself?

You should. You might find some interesting information.

I found the results of an old writing test, an empty photo album and my (slow) finish time for an 8K charity race. Luckily, this year’s results were also posted, so you can see that I’ve improved. Perhaps more disturbingly, I came across some previous addresses, a list of companies I “liked” on Facebook and the value of my home. I have a hard time remembering these things, but apparently Google doesn’t.

I will not search for ways to have these facts removed. The information is not malicious, nor was it meant to destroy my reputation. If anything, the people who posted it were just trying to bolster their company image by congregating a large quantity of new content. The innocuousness of it all is part of what makes it so frustrating. It may be invasive, it may be inconsiderate, but that does not make it wrong in the eyes of the law.

Unfortunately, it is possible that I gave someone the right to post it. I am embarrassed to admit it, but at some point, I become a mindless waiver robot. I simply lost sight of who had access to my personal information. At best, I skim through online user policies. Almost every game and every app or digital mode of communication is accompanied by a long waiver form, and I don’t have the patience to read them all. Considering so many marketers advertise product convenience, it sure is complicated to get going.

Perhaps naively, I just assume businesses have the decency to keep my information private. Companies or organizations that publish race times are mildly irritating, but ultimately harmless. Those that seek out and post old home addresses, email addresses, an individual’s age and the names of relatives push privacy boundaries to a new level.

WhitePages.com is a major offender when it comes to facilitating the distribution of private information, so it deserves special attention. Like its behemoth in-print version, the free online person search offers basic facts such as an individual’s name, current address and a landline phone number. But the website also lists additional content, including age, “associated” individuals and links to affiliates that, for an extra charge, provide information about bankruptcies, liens, household members, email addresses, neighbors, background checks and more.

Some of this information is already publicly accessible, but affiliated companies compile it and supplement it to create detailed, easy-to-acquire online profiles. According to the WhitePages privacy policy, the website gathers information that, “(i) you provide to us or authorize us to collect from your social media account(s) and (ii) information about your use of our products and services.”

I have yet to send WhitePages an authorization form. The website’s content collection policy is pretty vague, and it lends itself to further questions. What social media companies (if any) work with the website? Are WhitePages employees utilizing content they themselves find on social media websites? And most importantly, how are we authorizing them to share our information?

It is unsettling to know that a public records website, social media provider or any other digital resource can publish information about you without your knowledge – especially if that information leads to unfortunate or unforeseen consequence. Posters may not realize (or consider) that some benign references can affect a person’s image or employment potential. This is particularly true of details that hint at someone’s religious beliefs, handicaps or other individual demographics.

Take age, for example. Older individuals are at a disadvantage when they seek work, and their long-term unemployment rates are higher due to preconceptions about pay expectations and understanding of technology. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects those aged 40 and older from discrimination in job advertisements and during the hiring decisions, but the legislation is less effective if a quick name search reveals an applicant’s age before they get the chance to interview.

The government has taken some steps to safeguard online privacy and limit accessibility to personal information. This year, President Obama unveiled a blueprint for a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights”which serves to clarify and standardize digital privacy policies. The bill calls for website security measures that are transparent, easy-to-access and enforceable. Furthermore, it suggests that users should have the right to update their information and prevent some personal data from being posted.

To draw up the bill, the Commerce Department will meet with companies, privacy and consumer advocates, international partners, State Attorneys General, federal criminal and civil law enforcement representatives and academics who will work together to establish model policies that can make Internet users feel more secure. Among the bill’s priorities are creating policies that give users control over the way their data is used and disclose personal information in the context within which it was provided. That way, the phone number you used in your sports blog profile won’t show up on a person search listing.

Once the policies are created, the Obama Administration plans to encourage companies, privacy advocates, consumer groups, and other relevant representatives to collaboratively enforce them. The bill will also be sent to Congress for approval, so the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Attorneys General have the power to enforce it.

Some consumer data privacy regulations are already in place, but not all information sharing guidelines are subject to the same enforcement regulations. Federal laws ensure the privacy of health records, education, financial services and personal information about children under the age of 13, but most digital privacy policies are subject to self-regulation. The motivation behind adopting model FTC policies and honestly regulating them is the idea that a trustworthy reputation can ultimately translate into profit (and vice-versa).

I’m not sure that I trust companies with limited oversight to create and follow optimal privacy policies, but I’m also unwilling to cut myself off from the world of digital communication. (How else am I supposed to see what you’re having for lunch?) So until new laws make privacy policies legible, I will need to start forcing myself to read through the fine print. Remembering to keep private information private is a “live and learn” lesson, and I am still learning.

Kids and Credibility by Andrew J. Flanagin & Miriam J. Metzger

The MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning, published by the MIT Press, present findings from current research on how young people learn, play, socialize and participate in civic life. How well, for example, do children navigate the ocean of information that is available online? The enormous variety of Web-based resources represents both opportunities and challenges for Internet-savvy kids. Kids and Credibility by Andrew Flanagin and Miriam Metzger reports on the first studies aimed at examining children’s online information-seeking strategies and their beliefs about the credibility of that information.

The book starts of with a rationale for studying the credibility of information delivered via digital media, especially regarding children, and describing the research approach in short. The core of the book, however, deals with the findings from the studies conducted by Flanagin and Metzger’s team.

The first part of the findings, regarding use of the Internet by children, set the stage for interpreting the following parts. First, the assessment of credibility is investigated. The distinction that is made between credibility assessments based on heuristic (e.g., relying on gut feelings), analytic (e.g., carefully considering the information), and social (e.g., getting advice from others) criteria is very much welcomed. This distinction gives more insight into how and when credibility assessments lead to trust development. Subsequently, differences between children and parents regarding their ability to evaluate the credibility of information online are described in detail.

The latter part of the findings adds upon the previous parts by moving from descriptive towards quasi-experimental research, thereby providing the opportunity to explore causalities regarding evaluation of information online.

The text is very accessible; both for a scholarly audience and students. Nevertheless, an in depth discussion of potential theoretical contributions of this work is still missing. Since this research is explorative in nature, however, the book provides an excellent overview of the state of the art.

Finally, the implications and future directions are described to a limited extent. Nevertheless, the wealth of information provides the reader the opportunity to draw conclusions regarding future research and practice regarding kids and credibility.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&amp%3Btid=12287

Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess

Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess Polity Press | 2009

Polity Press's "Digital Media and Society Series" aims to explore how new technologies are fundamentally changing the ways we communicate. Digital Media Ethics by Charles Ess does just that.

Ess's fairly unique approach is to apply a particular ethical construct to bound discussion of concepts around certain sticky examples described in each chapter. Each chapter includes a chapter overview, a case study, discussion questions, and prompts for writing and reflection exercises. Ess's first five chapters offers a range of ethical issues that can be tied esily to other concepts in communication and media studies. The book concludes with a useful reference chapter that describes each of the ethical frameworks applied in the chapters more thoroughly.

The result is a text that caters to several audiences. Current examples and discussion bounded by particularly fitting ethical constructs make this text accessible to students encountering concepts in digital media and ethics for the first time. The same holds true for a scholarly audience who may be exploring concepts in digital media for the first time. For instructors, this book is a thorough resource to mine for discussion topics, discussion questions, suggested readings, writing prompts, and examples.

Ess begins by outlining central issues, and in subsequent chapters covers privacy, intellectual property, citizenship, and pornography and gaming. Each chapter offers specific timely examples paired with a particularly fitting ethical construct. For example, Ess pairs discussions of pornography online with feminist ethics and virtue ethics; he pairs a discussion of cultural attitudes about privacy with ethical pluralism. Ess provides a solid foundational discussion of privacy and copyright - two of the more prominent critical issues in cyberethics.

In addition to these foundations, Ess also provides background on digital behavior and digital culture. He shows how discussions of digital behavior and culture are central to digital media ethics, and not just a side note in ethics applied online.

The writing and reflection prompts are particularly useful for students and instructors as discussions of ethics in the classroom can quickly devolve into opinion and relativism. Each chapter includes questions and assignment prompts that delve deeper into the topic at hand, and asks for some application of concepts from media studies to guide student discussion. They require critical reflection on consequences.

For those not teaching the topic, Digital Media Studies provides an excellent background on some of the most pressing issues in digital media. All too often, digital media skeptics set aside discussion of digital behavior and digital culture to simply apply offline ethics online. Ess gives these readers an introduction to critical issues online, and guides them in some basic concepts to address those critical issues fully.