Governments generally argue for the use of censorship for the purpose of discouraging and disallowing the access to inappropriate material and other harmful practices, but further extend their censorship’s reach to affect many other facets of the internet; including politically sensitive material and discussions. There are several techniques which may be used to restrict the content deemed offensive by a government. This means that the authority in a given country can effectively restrict access to any material which they deem to be offensive. This is almost unavoidable for the citizens affected and so the resources which their internet holds are quite limited by these restrictions. As the internet has become such a valuable resource, people are not happy about its restriction.
Privacy and security of personal data is one of the most difficult challenges that businesses dealing in e-commerce venture face in today’s global world. Though these business sites have little or no interest in private and personal information of the users, but the information collected by them can however lead to risks. The personal information is often provided by users actively and voluntarily such as names, email ids, physical addresses or even credit card information. Though in some cases information is passively passed on by users and even sites to third party, for example some of site banner ads allow third party advertisers to track users browsing habits. But most often websites gather and use the data containing individual’s information without even their knowledge.
It has been hacked recently by the Syrian Electronic Army (“Viber free download” 2014) despite the technical measures used to protect user’s data. In the case study, the manager has to make a decision on whether the firm should be sold to the leading multinational corporation. Accepting the offer to sell the firm means that the users of Viber’s personal details will be exposed which is unethical and a violation of a person’s... ... middle of paper ... ...ong run. In conclusion, ethical decision making is determined by the three ethical models. The utilitarian and justice model are not as relevant in the case study because they do not take into account the protection of the consumer’s rights.
The biggest and most debatable topic is the privacy issue. Is the Internet a safe place to protect personal information such as financial information, medical data, etc…? Some people who are computer literate or at least with some experience in software and technology would not trust to release the information on the web or at random sites . As a matter of fact, any unknown or small vendor on the web would have difficulty getting many customers to do business online. Big vendors such as Amazon would want to secure their network infrastructure to protect the users information, so that their server would not be hacked.
Because the internet is sometimes considered unregulated, users often assume that the law does not apply to its use. Widespread misuse of people’s intellectual property via the internet occurs because of this belief, though anyone can access the internet. Since the number of people who have the ability to access the internet is so high, laws that are made to protect people’s publications in other media should also apply to protect them on the internet. Copyrights that protect products can sometimes be confusing to understand. The simplest way to identify copyright infringement is to question if the copyright is handed over with the product.
There are many countries that don’t allow the use of the internet at all and some countries only censor what they don’t want their citizens to know. Daniel Calingaert said “The internet has provided greater space for free expression in countries where traditional broadcast and print media are restricted” (64). Free expression is a very guarded privilege to United States citizens. Private citizens and businesses can censor what is accessed on their computers to protect themselves, so why would it not be acceptable for the government to censor what is accessed in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Some believe this is an infringement of free speech, while others find censorship of the internet a necessary evil in today’s cyber world.
These cases are the extremely negative ones that people want to and should avoid. The case of companies and third parties tracking browsing history and other information for advertising purposes hover over a finer line between good and bad. For some people, tracking can be considered convenient in terms of shopping for what they are interested in, and others may be uncomfortable with the thought of being tracked without knowing. As stated in the beginning, complete privacy is unlikely, but being informed about the tactics of the Internet can help one protect themselves and others in their care to be as careful and private as possible.
The people and not the government should have the right to choose on what to view on the internet. Consequently, control of the internet by a government often leads to invasion of privacy of internet users. Can the government read your emails? Apparently it can. Most governments monitor the emails of unsuspecting users with... ... middle of paper ... ...ood reason to censor the internet, but there are simpler ways to solve this problem without involvement of the government.
They say that the Internet has to be censored because it has material, especially pornography, which can and will be offensive to others. But not everybody agrees with that. The censorship of the Internet is still a very controversial issue, and people all over the world debate whether or not this is a case against free speech. While Morgan states that by censoring the Internet we’ll be protecting ourselves and our children, Mr. Jeffrey Pollock, a Republican from Oregon who used to think the same, recently changed his mind when he found out that his own site had been blocked by an Internet filter. After the incident, Mr. Pollock expressed that “To mandate the federal government to legislate morality, I find abhorrent”(Schwartz).
These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of innovation and technology and it would promote civil unrest. First of all, if the Internet was regulated by the government, this would violate the first amendment and the citizen’s right to privacy (Parrish).