Case 2.6: CompuServe Deutschland James Ryg, Cory Blair, Kellie Blacklock, Reana Mitchell 2/7/2015 Case Report 1 1
Introduction and Ethical Dilemma • Introduction: • In Germany, certain web content is restricted • Ethical Question: more than in the United States • • “What should Somm have done regarding CompuServe Deutschland was a German access to questionable content” Internet service provider • • This case involves right to access information, They were indicted for allowing certain types of free speech, as well as a number of issues pornography and neo-Nazi propaganda into regarding local laws affecting a global internet. Germany via the internet • Felix Somm was the Manager of CompuServe Deutschland Case Report 1 2
Role of Information Technology • Hardware • Servers owned by the internet service provider route traffic, and a separate server configuration is mentioned in the case that routes dialup traffic between various CompuServe servers • The server in question was the dialup route to the CompuServe Us server, where certain content banned in Germany is accessible. • Networks • CompuServe is shown to have the ability to filter traffic, including blocking sites. This implies that they can use network management software to prevent access to certain sites, and theoretically have the capability to filter by end-user. 3 Case Report 1
Four Critical Stakeholders • CompuServe Customers in Germany • Felix Somm • • Right to access content on the internet, but the Has the right to act according to his will as a responsibility to use it responsibly in manager of CompuServe, and to benefit from accordance with German regulations, and not employment, but must be beholden to German to access restricted content law and act in a manner to benefit customers. • Other CompuServe Customers • German Government • • Right to access all legal content in their country Has the right to regulate its people, but only to without being held to German law. Have a the extend that it does not unnecessarily responsibility to use it according to their infringe on freedoms and free speech. specific laws. Case Report 1 4
Alternative Courses of Action A. Do nothing A. Pros: This retains access to all the content on the CompuServe US newsgroup, and protects access and free speech. B. Cons: This results in a costly legal indictment, and allows illegal content that should be filtered before it is made visible to German web users through. B. Block access to all potentially flagging content on all CompuServe Servers A. Pros: This averts costly legal proceedings, and would be economical to implement. B. Cons: This course of action significantly restricts speech, affects worldwide customers who are not bound by German law, and also inadvertently blocks access to valuable information regarding breast cancer and AIDS research. 5 Case Report 1
Alternative Courses of Action A. Block access specifically for German users A. Pros: This would remove liability concerns, adhere to German law, and would allow CompuServe International customers to access content that they are allowed to access, that may be illegal in Germany., protecting their rights of access. B. Cons: This still prevents users in Germany from accessing any of the sites, even those of a potentially sexual, but educational nature. B. Set up a filtering service that blocks content based on the end-users location A. Pros: This would allow dynamic filtering, removes liability on Somms behalf, and allows more access to information that is helpful due to not being a blanket ban. B. Cons: This is potentially expensive to implement, still restricts content, and may still restrict content for CompuServe Deutschland customers who live in neighboring countries such as Holland. 6 Case Report 1
Deontological Ethics • To choose a deontological course of action, one would value duty and obligation above negative/personal consequences. • The first three courses of action could be considered deontological, if argued correctly. Nonetheless, I believe the most deontological of the three is the last option, to create a filtering system that blocks the illegal content. Deontologically, Somm is obligated to adhere to the German laws regarding filtering content, even if it means he must go out of his way/suffer personal loss to do so. • In this case, the personal loss he would suffer would most likely be money, as the creation of such a service would require time and new labor. He may also have to compromise his personal values regarding free speech, as he is restricting content to users. • From greatest to lowest, the importance of the stakeholder’s rights would be the CompuServe customers in Deutschland, the German government, the CompuServe company, and lastly, Somm himself. • What’s important about this order is that Somm and the company he works for, CompuServe, are last. Somm should consider the rights of both his German customers and the German government/legislature before his own in order to be deontological. He has a duty to follow the German law. 7 Case Report 1
Teleological Ethics • The purpose of teleological thought is to value the good of the many over the good of the few, despite what actions you take to achieve said good.The means are said to justify the ends. • Using teleological ethics, one could again choose any of the last three alternate courses of action. The issue we face when trying to think about the situation with teleological ethics is that we must assign a value to the rights of those involved, which could vary from person to person and proves somewhat difficult. • In keeping with this tentative assumption, choosing the fourth option again demonstrates the strongest teleological ethics. In this case, the “good of the many” is CompuServe customers -- and, by default, the German government -- while the “good of the few” is Somm, and perhapsCompuServe itself. • Offensive content is restricted via the filtering system that Somm and CompuServe had to invest to create, but helpful information about HIV/AIDS and breast cancer is still available. The wellness of the many outweigh the wellness of the few. • If we were to qualify the other three alternate courses of action, we would see that Somm’s actual course of action, to do nothing and allow free access to all content in Germany, did not cost him anything initially, but eventually led to his indictment, which I would consider costly. • Blocking access to the websites across all servers, or to just the Germans, would be beneficial in some ways. The action would block the offensive content and the liability of said content. But they also have costs. Information about HIV/AIDS and breast cancer would be lost with the illegal pornography, and issues of free speech could be brought up. 8 Case Report 1
Our Recommendation • The proper response in our view to this dilemma is to set up a filtering service • This provides a positive resolution in both deontological and teleological ethics. • The gains would involve less of a cost to society in that it is the action that limits freedom least, and preserves access to more information than any other alternative, save the action that imposes criminal liability on CompuServe, doing nothing. • The only real negative to our recommendation is fiscal cost. 9 Case Report 1
Conclusion • This is a complicated ethical dilemma, it involved not only freedom of speech, and access to information on the internet. • The internet is completely different than other modes of speech, as it is international, and persistent. Any other option besides local filtering imposes a restriction or censorship on billions of other individuals. • Does Germany have the right to impose its views on CompuServe Deutschland customers in the Netherlands or other neighboring countries. • Somm ended up doing nothing, and received a two year suspended sentence and was fined 100,000 Deutschmarks. 10 Case Report 1
Recommend
More recommend
