Podcast transcript: Ethics S1 20/21
This podcast is part of the UCIL Digital Society course from the University of Manchester running in 2020/21 semester 1. The story it relates to is hosted on Medium and can be found here.
In this podcast Naman and Nandana from the Library Student Team review the topic, The individual, identity and ethics, with help from your comments.
TRANSCRIPT
Hi, I’m Naman from the Library Student Team, and I’m here with my Student Team colleague, Nandana. The topic of discussion this week was the individual, identity and the ethics. The overall aim of the topic was for you to explore how the individual exists within our networked digital society, how we control our online identity and whether we can apply offline ethics to our online interactions. We asked you some specific questions on the topic to which you provided very useful insights. We very much enjoyed reading your perspectives, some of which we will analyse in detail today.
Our first question to you was ‘Do you think that we can apply the same rules to our online lives as we do to our offline lives?’ 46% of you said ‘Yes’ while 40% thought it was impossible for us to apply the same rules to our online and offline lives. A question this raises is why the same rules cannot apply across the board. It may be that our online lives are potentially visible to anyone across the world, depending on our privacy preferences. Whatever the reason, there are no straight answers to what is right or wrong when it comes to digital existence and hence it is likely to vary from person to person, time to time and circumstance to circumstance.
The second question we asked you was ‘What issues do you think are “aggravated, transformed or created” by the internet?’ You highlighted several issues including fake news, cybercrime and cyber bullying. One of you noted that, “crime, bullying, extremist activity and exploitation have all found a platform online which has more protection and anonymity from law enforcement than their offline equivalents.” The ability to be anonymous enhances individual privacy but it also perpetuates these issues because it shields cybercriminals from personal liability for their wrongs. While law enforcement agencies can work with online platform operators to identify and prosecute cybercriminals, the process tends to be daunting and impracticable. This certainly makes all of us susceptible to cybercrime and could take a toll on our mental health. You all did an excellent job highlighting the risks associated with having an online presence. Some of you even suggested solutions to these problems including, “raising awareness and making sure information on the web is moderated by creators.” These steps can certainly contribute to mitigating the risks you identified.
We thereafter considered the lasting impact of online behaviour. In this regard, we asked you whether the online actions of our childhoods should be assessed differently from those of our adulthood. Most of you said ‘Yes’, perhaps because as one of you pointed out, “we all make mistakes, and more so when we are young as we are learning to become better people…” Another student noted that “people should have the opportunity to demonstrate that their views, behaviours and opinions have changed,” which is completely logical. We of course always have to remember that “the internet is very strict and cruel , and [our] past will affect [our] future.”
The fourth question we asked was whether Ramon Fonseca is right to say his company’s information was stolen and if this is the real crime. Your answers provided interesting perspectives to privacy rights and circumstances where it may be permissible on moral grounds to infringe on these rights. Someone commented on the illegality of leaking information but circumstances may make it impossible to follow the law in that case. Similarly, another person admits the dilemma which this presents. They suggest that leaking information is necessary as a part of “crime solving”. Other responses suggest that while both are real crimes, those committed by Ramon Fonseca’s company are worse than those of the person who leaked their crimes. Another interesting twist to the argument is how the outcome of stealing information may justify the prior act. In support of this, someone noted that “If we steal information only to find that no illegal activity has been undertaken then surely this is just an invasion of privacy.” However, they also admitted that we cannot just base justification on whether we get an outcome or not. Thus the comment succinctly explained the complexity of the arguments, for and against invasion of privacy for altruistic purposes. It is rather interesting how we ranked crimes based on their severity, but we are unclear on whose moral compass forms the basis of these distinctions.
We also asked if you feel differently about the Ashley Madison leak and if so, why? Your responses indicated a different view compared with the Fonseca leak. Some responses noted that the crime in this case exposed a wider scope of innocent people in comparison to the Fonseca leak since information about people who have not committed adultery were also leaked. A response noted the extremely private nature of love affairs compared with tax evasion. One person noted how this leak may affect “the children or spouses that would not only be hurt but probably humiliated” while another person compared this with the positive impact of the Fonseca leak, tax payment and prosecution of offenders. This person suggests how both examples raise the problem with judgements on morality -… and …who gets to decide?
Finally, after noting that trolling represents an unwanted product of the circumstances of the internet and freedom of speech, we asked you to define trolling. While some of you compared it with an attack, others suggested that trolling is similar to jokes. Some of you suggested that the impact of trolling depends on how the subject receives it. Another person stated that trolling exists on a spectrum of two extremes of “simply joking around” and “bullying”. Another person considered trolling in light of the intent behind them and how they make trolled persons feel. This comment stated that trollers “arouse conflicts and hurt .. others’ feelings on purpose by posting controversial or hate speech online…” Your comments suggest the need to regulate trolling and reduce the harm that it possesses. Major questions include how this could be approached and by who.
Thank you for engaging with the topics and taking the time to write down wonderful, thoughtful comments. We hope you enjoyed this summary. Feel free to add comments any time to keep the conversation going.
We look forward to interacting with you at the next session.
